The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a Foreigners Tribunal's decision that had declared the petitioner to be a foreigner of the post-25 March 1971 stream. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish his linkage with his projected father through reliable evidence and found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's findings under its limited writ jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the opinion dated 28 March 2017 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Morigaon. He claimed to be an Indian citizen by birth and relied on electoral rolls, land records, school and local authority certificates, and a medical prescription to support his case.
A major argument raised before the High Court was that he had been suffering from a mental illness, which allegedly explained inconsistencies in his statements before the Tribunal. He also contended that the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench noted that merely producing a medical prescription could not establish that the petitioner suffered from a legally recognized mental illness.
Referring to the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the Court observed that where mental illness is relied upon during judicial proceedings and is disputed, the law provides a mechanism for examination by a competent medical board. However, the petitioner had never invoked that procedure before the Tribunal.
The Bench observed,
“The prescription placed by the petitioner… can, by no stretch of reasoning, conclude that the petitioner was a mental patient.”
The Court further found significant contradictions between the statements made by the petitioner and those of his wife regarding the death of his parents, the number of his siblings, and ownership of family property. According to the Bench, these inconsistencies weakened the petitioner's claim regarding his identity and family lineage.
Failure to Establish Family Link
The High Court also examined the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner. It held that the electoral rolls of 1966 and 1971 only contained the name of the projected father and did not establish the petitioner's relationship with him. Likewise, certificates issued by the Gaonburha, Gaon Panchayat President and school authorities could not be relied upon because their authors were not examined before the Tribunal.
The Bench observed that the burden of proving Indian citizenship rests on the person concerned under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and that burden had not been discharged in the present case.
Limited Scope of Judicial Review
The Court reiterated that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it does not act as an appellate authority to re-evaluate evidence considered by the Foreigners Tribunal.
The Bench observed,
“The certiorari jurisdiction of the writ Court being supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction, this Court would refrain from reviewing the findings of facts reached by the Tribunal.”
Decision
Finding no legal error or procedural irregularity in the Tribunal's decision, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The interim protection granted earlier was vacated, and the Court directed that all consequential steps arising from the Tribunal's opinion would proceed in accordance with law.
, E20 Petrol-300x169.webp)
