Gauhati HC rejects Assam man's 16 documents to prove citizenship
What's the story
The Gauhati High Court has rejected a petitioner's attempt to prove his citizenship with 16 documents. The court, in its judgment on June 30, noted, "Though the petitioner has exhibited 16 documents as exhibits, the same does not help the petitioner to establish that he has been able to discharge his burden as required under Section 9...to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen."
Case background
Documents included 1951 NRC, voter lists
The case was filed by Aminul Hoque, who challenged a February 2019 order of the Foreigners Tribunal, Guwahati. The tribunal had declared him a foreigner. He submitted documents like the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC), voter lists from 1966-2017, land purchase documents from 1973, PAN card, voter IDs, and school certificate to prove his citizenship.
Document scrutiny
Court questions authenticity of documents
The Assam NRC, completed in 2019, is yet to be notified. It was meant to determine genuine Indian citizens from illegal immigrants. The court questioned the authenticity of Hoque's documents and his father's oral evidence linking them. Mere oral evidence without documentary evidence—"which is admissible and relevant"—was insufficient, the court said.
Defense rejection
Discrepancies in names led to foreigner declaration
Hoque's lawyer argued that he was a migrant worker, and discrepancies in names led to the foreigner declaration. However, the court dismissed these arguments, saying it doesn't take a serious note of spelling discrepancies in names. The bench observed that "the petitioner has failed to show that all the projected members of the family...are not continuously together in all the voter's lists."
Relocation doubts
Court questions family relocation claims
The court also questioned Hoque's claims of family relocation between villages to explain name discrepancies. It said, "Without the support of any document, it has been argued that there was a shifting of the family." The school certificate submitted by Hoque was also questioned as its author did not depose to support it in court.