AI Insights
The case revolves around Uttam Ghosh, who was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) 3rd, Guwahati-3. The petitioner challenged this declaration, asserting his Indian citizenship by birth, supported by various documents including his father's Certificate of Registration as a citizen of India. The Tribunal had doubts about the genuineness of the documents and the continuity of residence in India before 1971, the cut-off date for identifying foreigners in Assam. The High Court, after examining the evidence and legal provisions, concluded that the petitioner is an Indian citizen, emphasizing the importance of the Certificate of Registration and the evidentiary value of voters lists.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800576 (HC-GUWAHATI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
23-06-2022
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
" WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 1 of 55 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI WP(C) No. 93/2022 Uttam Ghosh, Son of Promod Ch. Ghosh, Resident of Village- Bhaskarnagar, Vivakananda Puram Path, House No.A-25, Police Station-Fatashil Ambari, District-Kamrup(M), Assam, PIN-781018. ......Petitioner Versus 1.The Union of India Represented by the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi-110001. 2. The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006. 3. The Election Commission of India, Represented by the chief Election Commission, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001 4. The State Coordinator of NRC, 1st Floor, Achyut Plaza, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati, Assam, PIN-781005. 5. The Foreigner’s Tribunal No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, District-Kamrup(M), Assam PIN-781007. 6.The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Post Office-Pan Bazar, District-Kamrup(M), GAHC010226772021 WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 2 of 55 Assam, PIN-781001. 7. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Border), Guwahati City, Kamrup(M), Post Office-Pan Bazar, Distrcit-Kamrup(M), Assam, PIN-781001. 8. The Officer-in-Charge, Fatashil Ambari Police Station, Post Office- Fatasil Ambari, District-Kamrup (M), Assam, PIN-781018. ...........Respondents Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. D. Ghosh, Advocate. Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. K.K. Parasar, CGC. Mr. J. Payeng, Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal. Ms. U. Das, Government Advocate. Ms. L. Devi, Standing Counsel, NRC. Mr. A. Bhuyan, Standing Counsel, ECI. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR Date of Hearing & Judgment : 23.06.2022 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) [N. Kotiswar Singh, J.] Heard Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned CGC appearing for respondent no.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Special Standing Counsel, F.T. appearing for respondent nos.2, 5, 7 & 8; Ms. U. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 3 of 55 respondent nos.6, Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, appearing for respondent no.3 and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned counsel, NRC, appearing for respondent no.4. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned opinion dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) 3rd, Guwahati-3 passed in FT Case No. 02/2019 by which the petitioner was declared a foreigner. 3. Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had produced sufficient materials before the Tribunal to substantiate his claim that he is an Indian and not a foreigner. The petitioner has also collected some more important documents subsequently like certified copies of the voters lists of 1966, 1997, 2005 and 2021 etc. and if necessary, these may be allowed to be filed so that he can conclusively establish his claim of Indian citizenship. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that because of the lock down due to Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not produce the aforesaid documents. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the Court is not satisfied with the existing evidences on record to prove that he is an Indian, the matter can be remanded to the WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 4 of 55 concerned Tribunal for reconsideration by allowing these documents to be filed. The petitioner submits that otherwise also, there are sufficient documents to prove that the petitioner is an Indian and not a foreigner. 4. Before we go further to examine the rival contentions of the parties, we would like to examine the impugned opinion/order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) 3rd, Guwahati-3 passed in FT Case No. 02/2019. 5. As also mentioned in the opinion dated 07.07.2021, the petitioner had filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that the petitioner is a bonafide citizen of India by birth and was born on 15.11.1979 at Guwahati Railway Colony, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, Assam. He stated that his grandfather, father and other relatives had left the then East Pakistan and entered India as refugees. Thereafter, a Certificate of Registration was issued in the name of his father, Promod Chandra Ghosh, son of Late Jagannath Ch. Ghosh by the Sub Deputy Collector, Patharkandi, Cachar Assam on 24.10.1956 registering Promod Chandra Ghosh as a citizen of India. Thus, his father is an Indian citizen by registration. WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 5 of 55 6. It has also been stated that the petitioner’s father’s name, Promod Ch. Ghosh, appeared in the voters list of 1966 of LA-05, Patharkandi Assembly Constituency and the name of the petitioner along with his family members appeared in the final draft of NRC list of 2019. He also stated that his name along with the parents’ names i.e. Promod Ch. Ghosh (father) and Bina Rani Ghosh (mother) appeared in the voters lists of 2010, 2013 and 2019 under 54 West Guwahati Constituency. He also stated that his father, Promod Ch. Ghosh was a permanent resident of Village: Lowipua, Satish Basti, P.S. Patharkandi. The petitioner also stated that when his father was 31 years, his father shifted his residence from Karimganj to Panbazar, Guwahat along with his family and started his business and after a few years his father shifted his residence from Panbazar to Guwahati Railway Station at Kalibari and thereafter, again shifted to Bhaskarnagar, P.S. Fatasil Ambari, Guwahati-8 and from then, they have been living permanently in Bhaskarnagar. 7. It has been stated that the petitioner’s father has 4 (four) sons and 3 (three) daughters and the petitioner is the third son. The petitioner got married after he attained the age of majority. WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 6 of 55 8. Having recorded to the aforesaid facts as pleaded by the petitioner in the written statement, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the citizenship of the petitioner. The Tribunal considered the documentary evidences produced and exhibited by the petitioner as recorded in the opinion as follows: “(i) Ext „A‟ is the copy of Certificate of Registration in the name of Promod Chandra Ghosh, S/o Late Jagannath Ch. Ghosh issued by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Patharkandi, Cacahr, Assam. (ii) Ext.‟B‟ is the NRC Voter details of Promod Ghosh, S/o Jagannath Ghosh of the year 1966 under 5 Patharkandi LAC, District-Karimganj, Assam. (iii) Ext. „D‟, „E‟ and „F‟ are the certified copies of the voter lists of the years 2010, 2013 & 2019 respectively under Guwahati West LAC wehre the names of Pramod Ghosh, S/o Jagannath Ghosh, Bina Rani Ghosh, W/o Pramod Ghosh & Uttam Ghosh, S/o Pramod Ghosh are rendered. (iv) Ext. „G‟ is the Elector Photo Identity Card in the name of Uttam Ghosh, S/o Pramod Ghosh. (v) Ext „H‟ is the PAN Card in the name of Uttan Ghosh, S/o Promod Chandra Ghosh. 9. The Tribunal after considering the aforesaid documentary evidences held that the petitioner has failed to produce even a single voters list prior to 2010. The Tribunal further observed that even though the father of the petitioner, namely, Promod WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 7 of 55 Ch. Ghosh had stated in his evidence that he had cast his vote along with his parents in the year 1966, he did not produce any voters lists from the year 1966 till the year 2010. 10. The Tribunal further observed that though the petitioner had exhibited the Certificate of Registration as Exhibit-A, the same was not proved in accordance with law, and therefore, a serious doubt has been cast on the genuineness of the documents. The Tribunal accordingly held that no reliance can be placed on such documents and consequently, the presence of the father of the petitioner, namely, Pramod Ch. Ghosh on the Indian soil as a citizen of India relatable to a period prior to 25.03.1971 has come under cloud, since 25.03.1971 is the cut- off date for identification of the foreigners in the State of Assam as per Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended. 11. The Tribunal further observed that even if the petitioner is able to establish his relationship or linkage with Pramod Ch. Ghosh, it will not be sufficient to prove that he is an Indian and not a foreigner because presence of Pramod Ch. Ghosh is traceable only to 2010. 12. Accordingly, on the basis of the above observations and findings, the Tribunal held that the petitioner has failed to WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 8 of 55 discharge the burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 13. Considering the peculiar reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal, it may be apposite to reproduce the relevant portions of the impugned opinion, which read as follows :- “8. After careful scrutiny of the entire case record it is seen that the opposite party has failed to produce not a single voter list prior to the year 2010. Though the father of the opposite party namely Pramod Ch Ghosh has stated in his evidence that he had casted vote along with his parents in the year 1966, but he has failed to produce any such voter lists from the year 1966 till the year 2010. It also appears from the record that the opposite party produced and exhibited one Certificate of Registration as Ext „A‟ but that was not proved in accordance with law and therefore it casts serious doubt about genuineness of this document. As such no reliance can be placed on such document. 9. Considering the evidence both oral as well as documentary, the presence of the father of the opposite party namely Pramod Chandra Ghosh on the Indian soil as a citizen of India relatable to a period prior to 25/03/1971 has come under a cloud because 25/03/1971 is the cut-off- date for identification of foreigners in the state of Assam as per Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, as amended. Therefore, even if the opposite party is able to establish his relationship or linkage with Pramod Chandra Ghosh, it will not be sufficient to prove that he is not a foreigner but a citizen of India, because Pramod Chandra Ghosh is traceable only to 2010. 10. Hence, after perusal of the entire materials on record and discussion made above, I am of the view that the opposite party has miserably failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove that he is not a foreigner but a citizen of India. As such, I am of the opinion that the opposite party namely Uttam Ghosh S/o Promod Ch. Ghosh, resident of Bhaskarnagar, Vivakananda Puram Path, House no.A-25, P.S.- Fatashil WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 9 of 55 Ambari, Guwahati-18, District-Kamrup (M), Assam, is a foreigner.” CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER :- 14. As regards the aforesaid observations and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, Ms. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not correct to hold that the said Certificate of Registration i.e. Exhibit-A registering his father, Sri Promod Chandra Ghosh as a citizen of India was not proved in accordance with law. In making such a submission, Ms. Ghosh has relied on the Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which provides, inter alia, that where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. It has been further explained under Explanation to Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act that documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 10 of 55 care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable. 15. It has been submitted that since the said certificate belongs to his father and was exhibited by the petitioner, it can be said that it was in proper custody of the petitioner and since the said document is more than 30 years old, genuineness of the said certificate can be presumed, and the genuineness of the said document was never questioned by the State and, as such, the Tribunal ought not have doubted the genuineness of the said document. 16. As regards the other findings of the Tribunal, it has been submitted by Ms. D. Ghosh that apart from the said Certificate of the Registration, the NRC details and voters lists of 2010, 2013 and 2019 would clearly indicate that the family members of the petitioner had been in India since before 1956 and as such, the Tribunal ought not to have taken the views as mentioned above. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that otherwise also, the petitioner has come into possession of certified copies of the voters lists of 1966, 1997, 2005 and 2015 which will clearly show that the petitioner’s father has been in India as a WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 11 of 55 voter since 1966 and as such, the petitioner may be allowed to file his document before the Tribunal to substantiate his claim that he is also an Indian by virtue of being born to said Promod Ch. Ghosh, who is an Indian citizen by registration, who came from the then East Pakistan (Bangladesh) before 1956. Learned counsel submits that the fact that the petitioner’s father was given the Certificate of Registration by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Pathaarkandi, Cachar, on 24.10.1956 will prove that the petitioner’s father has been living in this country in Assam prior to 24.10.1956. CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE :- 18. Mr. J. Payeng, learned Special Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the prayer of petitioner to allow him to file an additional documents at this stage is totally untenable for the reason that at no point of time the petitioner had taken the plea before the Tribunal that he wanted to file certain documents which he could not collect because of the COVID pandemic situation and as such, the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to file these documents after the opinion is rendered, is merely to plug the loopholes, which has been pointed out by the Tribunal. Hence, it would be impermissible to file such evidence as otherwise, it may lead to an unending process when WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 12 of 55 the mandate of law is to complete the proceeding, as early as possible, preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of reference. Accordingly, it has been submitted that if such a prayer is allowed, when large number of cases are pending before the Tribunals, there would be no end to such claim being settled and it would defeat the whole purpose of law to detect and identify foreigners expeditiously who had come to India illegally. 19. Coming to the merit of the case, Mr. J. Payeng submits that first of all, the Certificate of Registration was not exhibited by the father of the petitioner in whose name it was issued but by his son and as such, not admissible and cannot be relied upon. According to him, father would be the natural custodian but there is nothing on record to show as to why the father did not exhibit the same but by the son and as such, the important condition mentioned for invoking Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is missing. 20. Mr. J Payeng submits that the burden is upon the proceedee to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian for which, he was required to file all the relevant documents in support of his case and there is no obligation cast upon the State to adduce any evidence. In this regards learned Special WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 13 of 55 Standing Counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarbanada Sonowal vs. Union of India & Another, (2005) 5 SCC 665, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid emphasis on the importance of the burden of proof imposed upon the proceedee. Mr. J. Payeng has drawn attention of this Court to para Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 26 thereof, which are quoted herein below: “21. The legislature then enacted the Foreigners Act, 1946 which repealed the 1940 Act. Section 2(a) of this Act defines a \"foreigner\" and it means a person who is not a citizen of India. Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 lays down that the Central Government may by order make provision, either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigner, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or, their departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence therein. Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), sub- section (2) confers power to make wide ranging orders concerning a foreigner which have been numerated in clauses (a) to (g), which include that a foreigner shall not remain in India or in any prescribed area therein, or if he has been required by an order under this Section not to remain in India, meet from any resources at his disposal the cost of his removal from India or remain in such area as may be prescribed and shall comply with such condition as may be specified or shall be arrested or detained or confined. Sub- section (3) provides that any authority prescribed in this behalf may with respect to any particular foreigner make orders under clause (c) or clause (f) of sub-section (2). Section 4 confers power for directing a foreigner to be detained or confined in such place and manner as the Central Government by order determine. Section 4(3) directs that no person shall knowingly assist an internee to escape from custody or harbour an escaped internee or to give any assistance to such a foreigner. Section 5 places restriction upon a foreigner to change his name while in India. Section WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 14 of 55 6 casts an obligation on master of any vessel and pilot of any aircraft landing or embarking at any place in India to give particulars with respect to any passenger or members of any crew who are foreigners. Section 7 casts a similar obligation on hotel keepers in respect of foreigners accommodated therein. Section 12 confers power upon any authority who has been conferred power to make or give any direction under the Act to further delegate to any subordinate authority to exercise such power on its behalf. Section 14 has been amended by Act No. 16 of 2004 and now maximum punishment under the said section is five years and also fine. Section 14A and 14B, which have been added by the aforesaid amendment, provide for punishment with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but may extend to eight years. Section 14C provides for some punishment for abetment of offences under Section 14A or 14B. Section 9 of this Act is important and it reads as under :- \"9. Burden of proof : If in any case not falling under section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), lie upon such person.\" 22. This Act confers wide ranging powers to deal with all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigner for prohibiting, regulating or restricting their or his entry into India or their presence or continued presence including his arrest, detention and confinement. The most important provision is Section 9 which casts the burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall lie upon such person. Therefore, where an order made under the Foreigners Act is challenged and a question arises whether the person against whom the order has been made is a foreigner or not, the burden of proving that he is not a foreigner is upon such a person. In Union of India v. Ghaus Mohammed AIR 1961 SC 1526, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi served an order on WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 15 of 55 Ghaus Mohammad to leave India within three days as he was a Pakistani national. He challenged the order before the High Court which set aside the order by observing that there must be prima facie material on the basis of which the authority can proceed to pass an order under Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. In appeal the Constitution Bench reversed the judgment of the High Court holding that onus of showing that he is not a foreigner was upon the respondent. 23. The Central Government has made the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Foreigners Act. Clause 2(1) of this Order provides that the Central Government may by order refer the question as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner within the meaning of Foreigners Act, 1946, to a Tribunal to be constituted for the purpose, for its opinion. Clause 3(1) provides that the Tribunal shall serve on the person to whom the question relates, a copy of the main grounds on which he is alleged to be a foreigner and give him a reasonable opportunity of making a representation and producing evidence in support of his case and after considering such evidence as may be produced and after hearing such persons as may deserve to be heard, the Tribunal shall submit its opinion to the officer or authority specified in this behalf in the order of reference. Clause 3(1-A) provides that the Tribunal shall, before giving its opinion on the question referred to in sub-paragraph (1-A) of paragraph 2, give the person in respect of whom the opinion is sought, a reasonable opportunity to represent his case. Clause 4 provides that the Tribunal shall have the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, requiring the discovery and production of any document and issuing commissions for the examination of any witness. …………… 26. There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country. In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Sometimes the place of birth of his grandparents may also be relevant like WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 16 of 55 under Section 6-A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. All these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State. After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 21. Mr. Payeng submits that, in fact, it has been mentioned in para-26 of Sarbananda Sonowal (Supra) that the proceedee is required to give evidence about his date of birth, place of birth, name of the parents and the place of birth and citizenship. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not even mentioned his date of birth or the citizenship of his parents and as such, if the petitioner does not furnish these vital pieces of information, the question of referring to other evidences of the petitioner without reference to the above facts does not arise. It has been submitted that the petitioner has not mentioned all these vital facts in his evidence and as such, the question of cross-examining the witnesses does not arise when the witnesses do not mention the material facts. WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 17 of 55 Mr. Payeng submits that D.W.2 whom the petitioner claims as his projected father, did not mention any of these vital facts and as such, the question of considering these evidences does not arise. 22. On the other hand, Ms. D. Ghosh submits that all the relevant particulars have been mentioned in the written statement as well as in the evidence and as such, submission made by the learned Special Standing Counsel is without any basis. OUR VIEW :- 23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. 24. As submitted by learned Special Standing Counsel, the burden of proof is on the proceedee and as such, it is incumbent upon the proceedee to submit all the relevant facts to establish his claim that he is an Indian citizen and in case, such relevant facts are not placed before the Tribunal, certainly, the Tribunal can draw necessary conclusion to the effect that such a proceedee has failed to discharge his burden of proving that he is not a foreigner but an Indian. 25. It is however, the settled position of law that the standard of proof to discharge the onus under Section 9 of the Foreigners WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 18 of 55 Act by a proceedee is preponderance of probability as also held by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Assam and Ors. Vs. Moslem Mondal and Ors., 2013 (1) GLT 809 , and certainly not it is by way of proof beyond reasonable doubt. As to what is “preponderance of probability”, has been succinctly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Sidduq Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5J) Vs. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court applied the test of a prudent man who upon wieighing the various probabilities finds that the preponderance is in favour of existence of the particular fact then such a fact can be said to have been established and burden discharged. It was held as follows: “720. The court in a civil trial applies a standard of proof governed by a preponderance of probabilities. This standard is also described sometimes as a balance of probability or the preponderance of the evidence. Phipson on Evidence formulates the standard succinctly: If therefore, the evidence is such that the court can say “we think it more probable than not”, the burden is discharged, but if the probabilities are equal, it is not.[Phipson on Evidence] In Miller v. Minister of Pensions [Miller v. Minister of Pensions, (1947) 2 ALL ER 372], Lord Denning, J. (as the Master of Rolls then was) defined the doctrine of the balance or preponderance of probabilities in the following terms: (All ER p. 373 H) “(1) … It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 19 of 55 man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence, “of course it is possible, but not in the least probable” the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice.” (emphasis supplied) 721. The law recognises that within the standard of preponderance of probabilities, there could be different degrees of probability. This was succinctly summarised by Denning, L.J. in Bater v. Bater [Bater v. Bater], where he formulated the principle thus: (p. 37) “… So also, in civil cases, the case must be proved by a preponderance of probability, but there may be degrees of probability within that standard. The degree depends on the subject-matter.” 722. The definition of the expression “proved” in Section 3 of the Evidence Act is in the following terms: “3. … “Proved”.—A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.” 723. Proof of a fact depends upon the probability of its existence. The finding of the court must be based on: 723.1. The test of a prudent person, who acts under the supposition that a fact exists. 723.2. In the context and circumstances of a particular case. 724. Analysing this, Y.V. Chandrachud, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) in N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane [N.G. Dastane v.S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326] held: (SCC pp. 335-36, para 24) “The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at 53 the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 20 of 55 the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note: “the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue273, CLR at p. 210”; or as said by Lord Denning, “the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter”. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear [Blyth v. Blyth, [1966] A.C.643 : [1966]2 WLR 634 : (1966) 1 All ER 524 (HL), All ER at p. 536‟. But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged.” (emphasis supplied) 725. The Court recognised that within the standard of preponderance of probabilities, the degree of probability is based on the subject-matter involved. 726. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal [State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302 : 1988 SCC (Crl.)], this Court observed: (SCC p. 314, para 26) “26. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the Judge.” 26. Keeping the aforesaid basic principle in the mind, we will examine as to whether the petitioner had indeed furnished the relevant information on the basis of which one can make a claim that he/she is not a foreigner but an Indian and as such could WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 21 of 55 discharge the burden on the basis of preponderance of probability. 27. For this purpose, we have perused the written statement filed by the petitioner. In the written statement filed before the Tribunal, the petitioner stated that he was born on 15.11.1979. He also has mentioned that his father’s name is Promod Ch. Ghosh, son of Late Jagannath Ch. Ghosh, who is an Indian citizen and he had obtained the Certificate of Registration which was issued by the Sub Deputy Collector, PatharKandi to Promod Ch. Ghosh. The said certificate was exhibited as Exhibit-A. Thereafter, he also mentioned in his written statement that the name of his father appeared in the voters list of 1966 with the Legacy Data Code 250-4045-8336, Image ID 15200799. He also mentioned that the petitioner and his family members’ names have been included in the final draft of NRC and the same was exhibited as Exhibit-C. He also mentioned that he is a regular voter and his name appeared in the voters list of 2010 which is exhibited as Exhibit-D. His name is also included in the voters lists of 2013 and 2019 which were exhibited as Exhibits-E & F respectively. WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 22 of 55 In the written statement, the petitioner submitted that his father was a permanent resident of Patharkandi, Cachar and when his father was about 31 years old, he shifted his residence from Karimganj to Panbazar, Guwahati and also mentioned about shifting of his residence at various locations in Guwahati. 28. We have also perused the affidavit in the form of evidence-in-chief filed by the petitioner in which he had reiterated what he has stated in the written statement. 29. We have also gone through the cross-examination of the petitioner who examined himself as D.W.1. His cross- examination reads as follows: “Name of my mother is Bina Ghosh. My grandfather is Late Jaganath Ghosh, Grandmother late Ahbani Ghosh. I was born at Kalibari Colony. My father had three siblings, apart from my father I forgot the name of others. Both of them died, I have never seen them. My grandfather was at Karimganj, his sons were also at Karimganj. Now no one from my grandfather stays at Karimganj. My grandfather had not land at Karimganj. I do no remember when I casted my first vote. My father casted his vote first at Karimganj. (illegible). In this case, I have not submitted any voters‟ list prior to 1971. I have not taken any step to proof exhibit-A and B. I am illiterate. We are 4 brothers-namely, Prabir ghosh, Dilip Ghosh, Uttam Ghosh, Pradip Ghosh. We stay together. We have 3 sisters, namely, Mithu Ghosh, Gita Ghosh, Rita Ghosh. All are married. Name of my wife is Soma Ghosh. I have two daughters, namely, Susmita Ghosh and Ishita Ghosh. All my brothers have been casting their votes. I have casted my vote with my parents. It is not true that as I have not been able to submit any documents prior to 1971 I am not an Indian.” WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 23 of 55 30. Similarly, we have also gone through the affidavit-in-chief filed by the father of the petitioner, namely Promod Ch. Ghosh who testified before the Tribunal as DW2. In his affidavit-in- chief, he (DW2) mentioned that the petitioner is his son and lives with him in his residence. DW2 also stated that in support of claim of the petitioner that he is an Indian citizen, the petitioner has placed all the documents before the Tribunal which are relevant to establish his claim. 31. The father of the petitioner, Promod Ch. Ghosh was also cross-examined. Cross-examination of DW2, the father of the petitioner reads as follows: “I have come to depose on behalf of my son Uttam Ghosh. Name of my mother is Late Ahbani Ghosh, I was born at “Kulba”, district-Sylhet. I along with my parents came to District-Karimganj at 20 years of age. After staying for 4 years I shifted to Guwahati, Panbazar from Karimganj. I alone came to Guwahati. Parents stays at Karimganj. I have casted my vote for the first time on 1966 at chatalbasti along with my parents. I have not submitted any voters‟ list from the said place. My father had land at Karimganj but said land was took away by river erosion. I have not submitted any document of the said land before the Tribunal. At present I have land at Bhaskarnagar. I have not submitted any document of the said land, I am paying revenue for the same but do not submitted any revenue receipt. I have casted my first vote in Guwahati in the year 1986. I have not submitted the said voter list. My borthers are Jatindra Ghosh, Prabhat Ghosh and me. Jatindra Ghosh has a son. He stays at Karimganj. Today I am depositing all true facts. I do not remember when my father died. When I came to Guwahati my WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 24 of 55 parents, brothers were at Karimganj. (illegible) stayed at Karimganj.” 32. On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief, cross-examination and written statement filed by the petitioner, what we have noted is that the petitioner has mentioned his date of birth as 15.11.1979 in his written statement and in support of his claim the petitioner has placed his PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Department, Government of India. Mr. J. Payeng submits that the PAN Card was issued much latter and cannot be considered as a proof of date of birth as held by this Court in Musstt. Rabiya Khatun vs. Union of India, [WP(C) No.4986/2016] on 09.02.2018 and as such, the date of birth mentioned by the petitioner in his written statement cannot be relied upon without any valid proof of the same. Para Nos.17, 17B, 17C and 18 of Musstt. Rabiya Khatun (supra) relied upon by Mr. Payeng are quoted herein below: “17. Petitioner introduced Exhibit-5, a PAN card of the Income Tax Department wherein Rabiya Khatun was shown as related to Kurdus Ali and her date of birth was mentioned as 10.9.1974. 17 A. Tribunal took the view that this PAN card could not be treated as trustworthy document. We concur with the view of the Tribunal for more than one reason. WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 25 of 55 Firstly, petitioner is not an income tax payee. There is no record of filing of return of income tax by the petitioner at any point of time. That apart, petitioner appears to be from agricultural background. Agricultural income is exempt from the purview of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, obtaining of PAN card by the petitioner appears to be quite unusual. 17 B. Secondly, this PAN card was not proved by tendering of evidence by the Income tax authority. Had a responsible officer of the income tax department deposed before the Tribunal , it would have been clear as to whether petitioner had indeed made any application for obtaining the PAN card and the particulars of such application. In the absence thereof, no credence can be given to such a PAN card. 17 C. Thirdly, this PAN card categorically mentioned the date 10.9.1974, which may be presumed to be the date of birth of the card holder. If the date of birth was known to the petitioner, certainly the same should have been mentioned in the written statement as well as in the evidence-in-chief filed by way of affidavit. But that was not done. 18. Therefore, this Exhibit-5 cannot be said to be a valid piece of evidence to establish that Kurdus Ali was a citizen of India and that Rabiya Khatun was the daughter of Kurdus Ali and thereby she was a citizen of India.” 33. Though, there cannot be a doubt about the said proposition of law laid in Musstt. Rabiya Khatun (supra) that a PAN Card cannot be the basis for establishing one’s date of birth or citizenship, yet, it cannot be shorn entirely of evidentiary value. Even if there is some doubt about the actual date of birth of the petitioner of which no question was asked either during the cross-examination or otherwise, the more important issue to be decided herein is, whether, the petitioner is the son of WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 26 of 55 Promod Ch. Ghosh or not, and also, whether said Promod Ch. Ghosh is an Indian or not. Further, while the date of birth of a person is relevant to determine the citizenship, what is important is not the exactitude of the date or the day on which a person is born. The significance lies in the fact as to when a person is born. If a person is born not in India, then the citizenship issue becomes critical. But if a person is born in Assam within certain specific periods, it will have relevance in determining the category of being an alien. If a person is born to a person who came before 01.01.1966, it will have a different implication. In such a case, he may be considered to be a son of a deemed citizen as provided under sub-section 2 of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. On the other hand, if a person is born to a person who entered Assam during the period of 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971, he may be considered to be a son of a foreigner who may however, get himself registered as a citizen of the country. But if he is a son of person who enters after 25.03.1971, he will be the son of a foreigner and thus liable to be deported. Thus, what is important is to ascertain during which period a person is born and not so much the exact date of WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 27 of 55 birth as required to be ascertained as in the case of a person who enters service to ascertain the date of superannuation etc. Thus, though the PAN Card may not be the appropriate documentary proof of date of birth, what it can indicate is that the name of the father is Promod Chandra Ghosh and in the Electoral Photo Identity card issued by the Election Commission of India which was exhibited as Exhibit G, his father is also shown as Pramod Ghosh which corroborates the claim of the petitioner as regards his father’s name. 34. What we have found is that the petitioner has made a specific claim that he is the son of Promod Ch. Ghosh in whose favour a Certification of Registration was issued by the Sub- Deputy Collector, Patharkandi, Cachar on 24.10.1956 which was exhibited as Exhibit-A. Thus, his father entered India before 01.01.1966. As regards the said document, it is on record that the said document was exhibited by the petitioner and not by his father and the question, which arises for consideration as contended by Mr. Payeng, learned State Counsel is, whether non-production of the said certificate by the father but by the son can be said to be permissible under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to claim the benefit of presumption of genuineness of the document on the ground of being 30 years WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 28 of 55 old. To appreciate the aforesaid issue, a proper understanding of the explanation provided under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is of great importance. Section 90 is reproduced herein below: “90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old- Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case consider proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person‟s handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. Explanation- Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable.” 35. What Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 postulates is that a document is said to be in proper custody if the same is under the care of the person with whom it would naturally be and if that is so, certainly Promod Ch. Ghosh, the father of the petitioner, would be the proper custodian. However, if we go to the second part of explanation in Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, it provides that no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable, which means that if origin of the document is WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 29 of 55 legitimate or if the circumstances render the custody of the document probable, it can still be considered to be in a proper custody of the person who produces it. Therefore, we can proceed to examine whether the production and exhibition of the said documents by the petitioner can be said to be proper in terms of the explanation to Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 36. What we have noted is that the reference was made against Uttam Ghosh not against his father Promod Ch. Ghosh. If Uttam Ghosh, the proceedee has to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian on the basis of being the son of an Indian citizen, it is his prime duty to produce all such evidences which support his claim, in which case, it will also include this certificate. That the petitioner is the son of the said Promod Chandra Ghosh shows the legitimacy to have custody of the said certificate. It certainly cannot be said that a son does not have a legitimate right to produce a document belonging to his father. Further, the father has also testified that he stays with his son. The circumstances, in which the petitioner has produced the certificate is clearly evident. The petitioner was producing the certificate when his citizenship has been questioned and at the relevant time he was staying with his father. WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 30 of 55 37. It may be also noted that after the said documents were exhibited by Uttam Ghosh, his father Promod Ch. Ghosh was also examined and in his evidence-in-chief, he had categorically stated that Uttam Ghosh is his son and in support of his claim he (the proceedee) had placed all his (father’s) documents before the Tribunal which are relevant to establish his claim, which includes the Certificate of Registration issued in the name of Promod Chandra Ghosh. We have also noted that the said Promod Ch. Ghosh was about 81 years old when he deposed before the Tribunal. 38. Under the aforesaid circumstances, when the petitioner’s father who was 81 years old, stood as a witness before the Tribunal to testify in favour of his son, and when there was no proceeding against him (father), there cannot be any doubt that the petitioner had a legitimate right to produce the same. In our view his possession of the certificate was legitimate. If the said Promod Ch. Ghosh himself had been proceeded, perhaps he would have produced the said certificate himself. But, being not the person against whom there was any pending proceeding and he being a witness to corroborate the evidence of his own son, the petitioner, in our opinion, could produce such a document belonging to his father to prove that he is the son of said WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 31 of 55 Promod Ch. Ghosh who is staying with him. Under the aforesaid circumstances, if the petitioner is relying on the said document and exhibiting the same, it can be said that he is the proper custodian of the said document within the meaning of explanation under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 39. We have also gone through the original records. The original records show that the said document exhibited as Exhibit-A, clearly mentions the name of Sri Promod Ch. Ghosh in whose favour this certificate was issued, and the name of his father has been mentioned as late Jagannath Ch. Ghosh. The said certificate also mentions the place of his (Promod Ch. Ghosh) birth as Batora, P.S. Kulba, District-Sylhet and Promod Ch. Ghosh was 20 years old at the time of issuance of the certificate and he was staying in Cachar district. The said certificate was issued by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Patharkandi. We have also noted that the genuineness of the said certificate was never questioned by the State, even in the cross- examination of the witnesses, which we have reproduced as above. 40. Thus, the position which emerges is that the said certificate, dated 24.10.1956, is certainly more than 30 years old and the said certificate is in the original form. The genuineness WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 32 of 55 of the said certificate has not been questioned. The person in whose name, the certificate was issued stood in person before the Tribunal and testified about it, but the State nor the Tribunal questioned him about the genuineness of the certificate. Rather, the answer given by Promod Ch. Ghosh in the cross examination fortifies the contents of the certificate that he had come from Sylhet along with his father Late Jagannath Ghosh. Therefore, we can certainly conclude that the said document is genuine in terms of 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the contents are also proved. 41. The next question which arises is, if the said document is considered to be a genuine document, whether the petitioner is able to show the linkage with the said Promod Ch. Ghosh as his father? 42. To establish his linkage with his father, Promod Ch. Ghosh, the petitioner has examined the said Promod Ch. Ghosh himself as D.W.2. As discussed above, the D.W. 2 has very categorically stated in his evidence that the petitioner, Uttam Ghosh, is his son and in the cross-examination also the said Promod Ch. Ghosh clearly mentioned that he had come from Sylhet. He was about 20 years old when he came to Karimganj, which clearly corroborates the contents of the said certificate WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 33 of 55 (Exhibit A). As mentioned above, the evidence of the said D.W.2 Promod Ch. Ghosh was not questioned by the State as regards this claim. Thus, the contents of the document stands fully corroborated and proved. There is nothing in the cross- examination to suggest that the contents of the said certificate are doubtful. The evidence of said Promod Ch. Ghosh was not in any manner shaken. Though the petitioner had not been able to file any voters list prior to 2010, what we have found is that the petitioner has been able to prove that he is the son of said Promod Ch. Ghosh. In the voters list of 2010, the petitioner’s name appears along with Promod Ch. Ghosh, his father separately. In Sl. no.989 of the said voters list of 2010, the name of Promod Ghosh as son of Late Jaganath Ghosh appears along with his wife Binarani Ghosh at Sl no.990. The name of the petitioner Uttam Ghosh, as son of Promod Ghosh, appears at Sl no.993 along with his other brothers. Thus, the fact that the petitioner is the son of Promod Ch. Ghosh and they are staying together is amply proved by this voters list of 2010. In the cross- examination, in the first sentence itself, the petitioner had mentioned his mother’s name as Bina Rani Ghosh and he also mentioned that his grandfather’s name is Jagannath Ghosh. The name of Jagannath Ghosh as the father of Promod WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 34 of 55 Ghosh appears in the voters list of 2010 as well in the Certificate of Registration. 43. In the subsequent voters list of 2013 also, similar entries are made where the name of the petitioner’s father Promod Ghosh appears as the son of late Jagannath Ghosh and Bina Rani Ghosh, the mother of the petitioner is shown as the wife of Promod Ghosh. The name of the petitioner himself appears as the son of Promod Ghosh. Similar position is found in the voters list of 2019. 44. Though the Tribunal has observed that no voters lists have been filed relating to the period from 1966 to 2010, in our opinion, absence of those voters lists will not have the effect of denuding or effacing the effect of the evidences adduced by the petitioner in the form of the Certificate of Registration and voters lists of 2010, 2013 and 2019 which we have held to have been proved. Further, reference can be made to the NRC, Assam document in which details of the voters in 1966 have been mentioned. Though it is settled law that the NRC itself cannot be the basis for claiming citizenship, yet the contents of the NRC, if not denied, can be used to corroborate other evidences. The said NRC document which has been exhibited as Exhibit-B shows WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 35 of 55 the name of Promod Ghosh as the son of Jagannath Ghosh and his (Promod Ghosh) voter serial number was 134 under 5 LAC Patharkandi, Karimganj which again corroborates the contents of the Registration Certificate. We see that the Certificate of Registration was issued by the Sub Deputy Collector, Patharkandi, Cachar and accordingly, in our view, the petitioner has been able to establish that he is the son of Promod Ch. Ghosh who had migrated from the then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) before 1956 to Assam and his father was staying in Patharkandi, Karmganj at the relevant time. That he continues to stay in Assam is also corroborated by the subsequent voters list of 2010 onwards. 45. We are not able to understand as what the Tribunal had meant when it held that the petitioner has failed to produce not a single voters list prior to 2010 though his father had stated in his evidence that he had been casting vote since the year 1966 but did not produce any voters lists from the year 1966 till the year 2010. We are also not able to understand when the Tribunal held that even if the Certificate of Registration was exhibited, no reliance can be placed on such a document as mentioned in para 8 of the impugned order. WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 36 of 55 We are also not able to understand with the observation of the learned Tribunal that the presence of the father of the petitioner to a period prior to 25.03.1971 has come under cloud as 25.03.1971 is the cut-off date for identification of the foreigners in the State of Assam as per Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and further, even if the petitioner is able to establish his relationship or linkage with Pramod Chandra Ghosh, it will not be sufficient to prove that he is an Indian and not a foreigner because presence of Pramod Chandra Ghosh is traceable only to 2010. 46. We are of the view that the aforesaid observations of the learned Tribunal are because of improper understanding of the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Learned Tribunal has misconstrued the meaning and scope of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. It may be also mentioned that Citizenship Act, 1955 deals with various means of acquisition of citizenship as provided under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7, 7A etc. of the Act. As far as the State of Assam is concerned, Section 6A figures very prominently, as the same is a special provision relating to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord. WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 37 of 55 However, confining the issue of citizenship only to Section 6A without considering the other provisions of the Citizenship Act would lead to serious error and injustice, as has happened in the present case. 47. Section 5 of Citizenship Act, 1955 specifically deals with citizenship by registration. Section 5(1)(a) provides for citizenship by registration of those persons of Indian origin who had been ordinarily residents in India for 7(seven) years before making an application for registration. Section 5(1)(a) reads as follows, “5. Citizenship by registration.―(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and such other conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the Central Government may, on an application made in this behalf, register as a citizen of India any person not being an illegal migrant who is not already such citizen by virtue of the Constitution or of any other provision of this Act if he belongs to any of the following categories, namely:― (a) a person of Indian origin who is ordinarily resident in India for seven years before making an application for registration; (b) .................................................... (c) ........................................................ (d) ................................................... (e) ..................................................... (f) ............................................ (g) .............................................. .......................................................” Thus, under Section 5(1)(a), if a person of Indian origin, who is not an illegal migrant and not already a citizen by virtue WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 38 of 55 of the Constitution, and who has been ordinarily residing in India for 7(seven) years, makes an application for registration as a citizen of this country, the same can be allowed. Thus, if allowed, such a person of Indian origin, becomes a citizen of this country by way of registration. This provision does not stipulate that such a person must be residing in the State of Assam only. Such a person can reside in any part of the country (including Assam) to get the benefit under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 48. In the present case, the petitioner’s father was granted citizenship by way of registration under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as clearly mentioned in the Certificate of Registration. The scanned copy of the said certificate issued in favour of the petitioner’s father Promod Chandra Ghosh which was exhibited as Ext.A is reproduced hereinbelow. WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 39 of 55 WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 40 of 55 49. It is to be noted that the petitioner’s father along with his father (grandfather of the petitioner) entered India not as an illegal immigrant but as an migrant because of religious persecution and he being an Indian origin and Hindu Bengali was granted citizenship by way of registration by the competent authority by issuing the aforesaid Citizenship Certificate under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 50. It is to be noted that the case of such persons who have been granted citizenship by way of registration under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act cannot be examined from the perspective of Section 6A which has been incorporated under Citizenship Act, 1955 in the year 2004 by an amendment specifically to deal with persons who had come before 1966 and thereafter to Assam. In respect of persons who entered Assam before 01.01.1966 from the specified territory and have been ordinarily residents of Assam since then and whose names are included in the electoral rolls used for General Election to the House of People held in 1967 they shall be deemed to be citizens of India with effect from 01.01.1966. As regards other persons of Indian origin who came to Assam on or after 1st January, 1966 but before 25.03.1971 from the specified territory and who have, since the date of entry into WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 41 of 55 Assam, been ordinarily residents of Assam and have been detected to be foreigners, will be allowed to register themselves with the competent authority and after expiry of 10(ten) years, such persons shall be deemed to be citizens as provided under sub-sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The aforesaid provisions of Section 6A are quoted below: “[6A. Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord.―(1) For the purposes of this section― (a) “Assam” means the territories included in the State of Assam immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985; (b) “detected to be a foreigner” means detected to be a foreigner in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946) and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 by a Tribunal constituted under the said Order; (c) “specified territory” means the territories included in Bangladesh immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985: (d) a person shall be deemed to be Indian origin, if he, or either of his parents or any of his grandparents was born in undivided India; (e) a person shall be deemed to have been detected to be a foreigner on the date on which a Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 submits its opinion to the effect that he is a foreigner to the officer or authority concerned. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7), all persons of Indian origin who came before the lst day of January, 1966 to Assam from the specified territory (including such of those whose names were included in the electoral rolls used for the purposes of the General Election to the House of the People held in 1967) and who have been ordinarily resident in Assam since the dates of their entry into Assam shall be deemed to be citizens of India as from the lst day of January, 1966. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7), every person of Indian origin who― WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 42 of 55 (a) came to Assam on or after the lst day of January, 1966 but before the 25th day of March, 1971 from the specified territory; and (b) has, since the date of his entry into Assam, been ordinarily resident in Assam; and (c) has been detected to be a foreigner; shall register himself in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government in this behalf under section 18 with such authority (hereafter in this sub-section referred to as the registering authority) as may be specified in such rules and if his name is included in any electoral roll for any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency in force on the date of such detection, his name shall be deleted therefrom. Explanation.―In the case of every person seeking registration under this sub-section, the opinion of the Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 holding such person to be a foreigner, shall be deemed to be sufficient proof of the requirement under clause (c) of this sub\u0002 section and if any question arises as to whether such person complies with any other requirement under this sub-section, the registering authority shall,― (i) if such opinion contains a finding with respect to such other requirement, decide the question in conformity with such finding; (ii) if such opinion does not contain a finding with respect to such other requirement, refer the question to a Tribunal constituted under the said Order hang jurisdiction in accordance with such rules as the Central Government may make in this behalf under section 18 and decide the question in conformity with the opinion received on such reference. (4) A person registered under sub-section (3) shall have, as from the date on which he has been detected to be a foreigner and till the expiry of a period of ten years from that date, the same rights and obligations as a citizen of India (including the right to obtain a passport under the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and the obligations connected therewith), but shall not entitled to have his name included in any electoral roll for any Assembly or Parliamentary constituency at any time before the expiry of the said period of ten years. (5) A person registered under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be a citizen of India for all purposes as from the date of expiry of a period of ten years from the date on which he has been detected to be a foreigner. (6) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8― WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 43 of 55 (a) if any person referred to in sub-section (2) submits in the prescribed manner and form and to the prescribed authority within sixty days from the date of commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 (65 of 1985), a declaration that he does not wish to be a citizen of India, such person shall not be deemed to have become a citizen of India under that sub-section; (b) if any person referred to in sub-section (3) submits in the prescribed manner and form and to the prescribed authority within sixty days from the date of commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985(65 of 1985), or from the date on which he has been detected to be a foreigner, whichever is later, a declaration that he does not wish to be governed by the provisions of that sub-section and sub-sections (4) and (5), it shall not be necessary for such person to register himself under sub-section (3). Explanation.―Where a person required to file a declaration under this sub-section does not have the capacity to enter into a contract, such declaration may be filed on his behalf by any person competent under the law for the time being in force to act on his behalf. (7) Nothing in sub-sections (2) to (6) shall apply in relation to any person― (a) who, immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, is a citizen of India; (b) who was expelled from India before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946). (8) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this section, the provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. 51. From the above, it is very clear that if a person comes after 25.03.1971 and is found to be a foreigner, there is no such provision for registration and such persons will be liable to be treated as foreigners and deported. 52. In the present case, the plea of the petitioner is not that his father had come before 1966 and had been ordinarily WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 44 of 55 residing in Assam and accordingly, shall be deemed to be a citizen of India as from 01.01.1966 as provided under sub- section 2 of Section 6A. The case of the petitioner is that he is the son of one Promod Chandra Ghosh, son of Late Jagannath Ch. Ghosh who had already been registered as a citizen of India under Section 5(1)(a) having entered in India before 1956 and as such, the question of his proving that his father Promod Chandra Ghosh had been ordinarily residing in Assam till 25.03.1971 i.e. the date mentioned under Section 6A does not arise. Only such person who has not yet been registered as a citizen under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, but who had entered Assam, India before 01.01.1966 from the specified territory and continues to be ordinarily resident of Assam can claim to be a citizen by virtue of sub-section 2 of Section 6A. But that is not the case here, since the petitioner’s father Promod Chandra Ghosh was already granted citizenship by way of registration under Section 5(1)(a), much prior to insertion of Section 6A in the Citizenship Act, 1955, the provisions of sub-section (2) Section 6A cannot be invoked to examine his case. Further, the applicability of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 6A does not arise in the present case as the petitioner’s father had arrived in Assam before 01.01.1966. WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 45 of 55 53. In view of the aforesaid findings, we are of the opinion that adducing of further evidence which is the alternative prayer of the petitioner, will not be necessary. 54. In this connection, it may be also noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarbanabda Sonowal (II) vs. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 174 in para 55 had cautioned that adequate care should be taken to see that no genuine citizen of India is thrown out of the country. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a person who claims himself to be a citizen of India in terms of the Constitution of India or the Citizenship Act is entitled to all safeguards both substantive and procedural provided for therein to show that he is an Indian citizen. Para No.55 of Sarbananda Sonowal (II) reads as follows, “55. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that adequate care should be taken to see that no genuine citizen of India is thrown out of the country. A person who claims himself to be a citizen of India in terms of the Constitution of India or the Citizenship Act is entitled to all safeguards both substantive and procedural provided for therein to show that he is a citizen.” 55. The importance of determination of citizenship has been also reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Matali @ Mataleb (Md.) Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2015 2 GLT 617, in which Anima Hazarika, J. observed on behalf of the Court as follows: WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 46 of 55 “14. The question of determination of citizenship of a person in a country strikes upon the very root of right of a such person emanating from the Constitution and other laws in force in the country. Any doubt cast upon a person regarding his/her citizenship status stigmatizes him/her and causes the potential to affect his/her fundamental right. As such, determination of citizenship status of a person is of immense consequences and has to be proceeded strictly in accordance with law so as to afford all opportunity to such a person to prove his/her citizenship credential, because the law in vogue mandates that the burden of proof of citizenship lies on the person against whom, he/she being a foreigner is alleged.” 56. Apart from the importance attached to citizenship by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court as referred to above and in many other decisions of this Court, what is important to be noted in this particular case is that, the proceedee is claiming to the son of a person who had taken refuge in this country after the Independence on account of religious persecution in the then East Pakistan and who was granted Indian citizenship by way of registration in 1956 under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act. 57. The fact that many persons like the present proceedee’s father who profess Hinduism as their religion had been subjected to persecution in the then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh is a historical fact which has been acknowledged without any dispute from any quarter. This historical fact has been noted by the authorities as is clearly evident from the 2nd paragraph of the “Statement of Objects and Reasons” while WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 47 of 55 introducing the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 which was subsequently passed by the Parliament and has received the assent of the President. This historical fact forms the basis of the aforesaid Amendment Act, relevant portions of which are reproduced hereinbelow: “The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 ……………………………………………………… STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955) was enacted to prove for acquisition and determination of Indian citizenship. 1………………………………. “2. It is a historical fact that trans-border migrant of population has been happening continuously between the territories of India and the areas presently comprised in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. Millions of citizens of undivided India belonging to various faiths were staying in the said areas of Pakistan and Bangladesh when India was partitioned in 1947. The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries. Some of them also have fears about such persecution in their day-to-day life where right to practice, profess and propagate their religion has been obstructed and restricted. Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter and continued to stay in India even if their travel documents have expired or they have incomplete or no documents. 3. ………………………. 4………………………….. ……………………..” 58. It may be mentioned that the aforesaid Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 after enactment has not yet been notified in the Official Gazette and hence yet not been implemented, and the vires of the Act has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As such, we are not relying on the provisions of WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 48 of 55 the aforesaid Amendment Act. However, a reference is made only for the purpose of drawing attention to the fact that many people belonging to different communities including the community to which the petitioner’s father belongs had faced persecution on the ground of religion compelling them to flee East Pakistan and take shelter in India. 59. The fact that the petitioner’s father had entered this country along with his relatives is recorded in the Certificate of Registration. The fact that the certificate was issued on 24.10.1956 in favour of petitioner’s father Promod Ch. Ghosh as a citizen of India under the provision of Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 will show that Promod Chandra Ghosh had been staying in Assam before 24.10.1956. 60. Thus, in our view, if a person has been given citizenship of this country by registration after being given refuge in this country by issuing a Certificate of Registration, as in the present case, the descendants of such a person will be also considered as citizens of this country by birth and this country has not only a moral obligation, but also legal obligation to protect the citizenship of such persons. WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 49 of 55 61. In the present case, the petitioner claims citizenship by birth in terms of Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 by virtue of being the son of Promod Ch. Ghosh, who was granted citizenship of this country in the year 1956. 62. As such, it is not required for the petitioner to prove that, his father after being given citizenship in 1956, continues to stay in Assam as in the case of such persons claiming citizenship under sub-section 2 of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. A person claiming citizenship under sub-section 2 of Section 6A has to prove that after entering before 01.01.1966, he continued to be ordinarily resident of Assam since 01.01.1966 and that his name is included in the electoral rolls used for the purpose of General Election to the House of People held in 1967. However, in case of a person who was registered as a citizen under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, such requirements that he should continue to be ordinarily resident of Assam and the name should be entered in the voters list mentioned therein, are not necessary. In fact, such person who is granted citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 can stay anywhere in India and come and settle in Assam any time, and his children born in India after being granted citizenship will also become Indian citizens. The category of persons who are granted citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) is different from the other class of persons who are WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 50 of 55 deemed to be citizens of this country under sub-sections (2) or (3) of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. These belong to a different category and these two categories cannot be treated in a similar manner. 63. The aforesaid Promod Ch. Ghosh himself appeared before the Tribunal and the Certificate of Registration issued in 1956 in his name was exhibited though by his son. Promod Ch. Ghosh had himself appeared before the Tribunal and testified that his son filed all the documents belonging to him to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that he is the son of Promod Ch. Ghosh. Thus, it can be said to have been proved that the petitioner is also an Indian citizen by birth having been born to an Indian citizen in India sometime in 1979. 64. The genuineness and authenticity of the said Certificate of Registration was never questioned by the State. The relationship of son and father claimed by the petitioner, and as father and son asserted by the said Promod Ch. Ghosh, has never been questioned. It is also a fact that the name of the petitioner appears separately but together with the name of the said Promod Ch. Ghosh in the same voters list of 2010 and other documents. 65. Thus, in our view, there are sufficient adequate documentary evidences which are fully corroborated by oral evidence by way of testimony of the petitioner as well as his father that his father was WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 51 of 55 born in Sylhet in the then East Pakistan and entered India and was given shelter in this country and was granted citizenship of this country in the year 1956. This would prove that the petitioner, born to Promod Ch. Ghosh in 1979 in India, is an Indian citizen. We are thus, satisfied that the petitioner has been able to prove his citizenship by virtue of being the son of a registered citizen on the basis of the standard of proof by preponderance of probabilities. 66. In this regard, we would also like to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also clearly mentioned in para 26 of Sarbananda Sonowal (I) (supra) that once the proceedee has given evidence of his date of birth, place of birth, name of his parents, their place of birth and citizenship etc., the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. Relevant portion of para 26 of Sarbananda Sonowal (I) (supra) reads as follows, “.................In order to establish one‟s citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of one‟s citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Sometimes the place of birth of his grandparents may also be relevant like under Section 6-A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. All these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State. After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary......................” (emphasis added) In the present case, the petitioner has given all the information as contemplated in the Sarbananda Sonowal (I) WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 52 of 55 case but the State has not contradicted any such facts, much less, led any evidence in rebuttal. Further, the State has opted not to verify these verifiable pieces of information. 67. As noted above, the genuineness of the certificate of registration issued in the name of the petitioner’s father was not questioned by the State and also did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. 68. Learned Tribunal merely rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce a single voters list prior to 2010 and after 1966. In our view, such a finding totally ignores the reliable, credible evidences both documentary and oral evidences adduced by the petitioner, apart from misconstruing the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as discussed above. 69. What we have noted also is that, the finding of the learned Tribunal in para 9 that even if the opposite party is able to establish his relationship or linkage with Promod Chandra Ghosh, it will not be sufficient to prove that he is not a foreigner but a citizen of India because of Promod Chandra Ghosh is traceable only to 2010, implicitly recognizes that the petitioner has been able to establish his linkage with his father. But, merely because, the presence of his father is traceable only from 2010, and not prior to it (in spite of evidences to that effect), the Tribunal held that WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 53 of 55 petitioner has not been able to prove that he is an Indian. The aforesaid reasoning is based on the faulty assumption of the Tribunal that the presence of the father needs to be proved even before 2010 in view of requirements of sub-section 2 of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. We have already dealt in detail various provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 as above. Such a reasoning is contrary to the other provisions of the Citizenship Act as the case of the petitioner is covered by Section 5(1)(a) of the Act and not by Section 6A of the Act. 70. We have kept in mind, as also held by the Full Bench of this Court in Moslem Mondal (supra) that the scope of intervention of the Court is limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Yet, where the statutory authority exercises its discretionary jurisdiction without taking into consideration the relevant facts or renders its decision on wholly irrelevant factors or by ignoring relevant important provisions of law or misconstrues the provisions of law, which has a bearing on the decision of the inferior Court or the Tribunal, these can be valid grounds for judicial interference. In this regard one may refer to para No.112 of Moslem Mondal (supra) which reads as follows: “(112) ...........................As noticed above, the judicial review of the order passed by the interior Court or the Tribunal, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is limited to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record, which also takes within its fold a case where statutory authority exercising its discretionary jurisdiction did not take into consideration a relevant WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 54 of 55 fact or renders its decision on wholly irrelevant factors. Hence, the failure of taking into account the relevant facts or consideration of irrelevant factors, which has a bearing on the decision of the inferior court or the Tribunal, can be a ground for interference of the Court or Tribunal‟s decision in exercise of the writ jurisdiction by the High Court.” 71. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such cases as in the present case, two options are always available before the Court. One is to remand the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration and other is to decide the matter finally ourselves which however, should be sparingly exercised. We however, have opted to exercise the second course of action under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and credible evidences on record. In our view, remanding the matter to the Tribunal again in the teeth of credible, undisputed evidences on record which show that the petitioner is an Indian, being the son of a person who was granted Indian citizenship by registration under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, would unnecessarily expose the petitioner to the vagaries of long drawn litigation. In our view, it will be a pointless exercise inasmuch as there cannot be any other more reasonable conclusion than what we have arrived at now on the basis of the unrebutted evidences on record that the petitioner is an Indian by virtue of being a son of an Indian citizen. In fact, it will amount to abuse of the process of law and travesty of justice if WP(C) No.93/2022 Page 55 of 55 we, in spite of availability of cogent, convincing and reliable evidences on record to show that the petitioner is an Indian, relegate the matter to the Tribunal. We therefore, by declining to remand the matter to the Tribunal, have proceeded to determine the citizenship of the petitioner by declaring him to be an Indian citizen on the basis of the evidences on record as discussed above. 72. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned opinion dated 07.07.2021 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Kamrup (M) 3rd, Guwahati-3 passed in FT Case No. 02/2019 is set aside and declare the petitioner, namely, Sri Uttam Ghosh, son of Pramod Ch. Ghosh @ Promod Ch. Ghosh, resident of Village Bhaskarnagar, Vivakananda Puram Path, House No.A-25, Police Station- Fatasil Ambari, District- Kamrup (M), Assam who was proceeded in the aforesaid proceeding, to be an Indian citizen. 73. Let the LCRs be remitted immediately to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- Lanusungkum Jamir Sd/- N. Kotiswar Singh JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant "
Other Referred Cases
Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India & Another, Musstt. Rabiya Khatun vs. Union of India, Abdul Matali @ Mataleb (Md.) Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Laws Referred To
Citizenship Act, 1955, Foreigners Act, 1946, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
Initial LLP Agreement
₹0
Form AOC-2 - Disclosure of Related Party Transaction
Mehul₹50
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026