Gauhati High Court Declares Assam Man a Foreigner

The Gauhati High Court upheld an order declaring an Assam man a foreigner of the post-March 25, 1971 category on 8 October 2023. The ruling stated that continuous domestic residence is a crucial requirement for proving Indian citizenship. The division bench, comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, dismissed the man’s writ petition that challenged a September 2018 decision by a Foreigners Tribunal. The court also revoked the bail previously granted to him.

The court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish his lineage to his father and grandfather due to significant gaps and inconsistencies in electoral documentation. The bench pointed out a 20-year gap between the 1977 and 1997 electoral rolls, noting that the petitioner entered the voter rolls for the first time in 1997 at the age of 26—five years after reaching the voting age of 21.

The judges highlighted discrepancies in the voter lists submitted, which referenced multiple villages and contained conflicting personal details. In the 1966 electoral records, the petitioner’s father was listed as Kurfan Ali and his grandfather as Jan Mamud. However, subsequent voter lists recorded their names as Kurpan Ali and Janu Miya.

The bench supported the tribunal’s view that the 1977 electoral records appeared to document an unrelated family. They stated that such an extensive gap in the grandfather’s residential history since 1966 could not be overlooked. Additionally, the petitioner did not provide his date of birth, place of birth, or the names of his mother and siblings. The 2018 tribunal also noted that the man had omitted the birthplace of his grandparents and the names of his grandfather’s siblings.

The petitioner, represented by advocate N Uddin, contended that public records had been improperly dismissed by the tribunal. He argued that the 1970 voter list included both his parents and grandparents, thereby establishing a legal link. The defense also referenced oral testimony from the petitioner’s father, which asserted that the father’s Indian citizenship supported the son’s claim.

To account for discrepancies in the voter rolls, the petitioner explained that his family had faced multiple displacements due to river erosion along the Brahmaputra River. He stated that he was born in Niz-Paruwa village, but riverbank collapse forced the family to move to Champupara Pathar, and they later relocated to Ujan Duramari and Bhitar Duwar.

Contrarily, government standing counsel G Sharma argued that the oral statements from the petitioner’s father lacked supporting documentary evidence and could not verify citizenship. The state maintained that the petitioner had not established a verifiable ancestral link to his father and grandfather.

The High Court found merit in the state’s argument, ruling that even if the petitioner’s family experienced relocations due to river erosion, the documentary evidence failed to substantiate his lineage to his asserted parents and grandparents.