Gauhati High Court
Rahim Ali @ Rahimuddin @ Md. Abdul Rahim vs The Union Of India & 2 Ors on 25 August, 2015
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP (C) No. 4071/2013
Rahim Ali @ Rahimuddin @ Md. Abdul Rahim,
S/o. Late Kuddush Ali @ Kaddus Ali @ Kurdush Ali,
Village _ Finguwa,
P.S. - Sarthebari,
District - Barpeta, Assam.
...........Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary
of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India,
New Delhi-1.
2. The State of Assam, represented by the
Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam,
Home Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
3. The Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta,
District- Barpeta, Assam.
..........Respondents
For the petitioners : Mr. M.U. Mahmud. Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. S.C. Keyal, ASGI,
Mr. N. Mohammad, GA.
WP(C) 4071/13 oral dated 25/08/15 Page 1 of 10
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA
Date of hearing & Judgement: 25/08/2015
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28/06/2013 of the Foreigners Tribunal-III, Barpeta, passed in case No. FT Case No. 04(III)/2013 (Ref. IMDT Case No. 1595/01) (State Vs. Rahim Ali @ Rahimuddin), by which the petitioner has been declared to be a foreigner.
2. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Noor Mohammad, learned State Counsel and so also Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the LCR received from the Tribunal.
3. In the written statement filed before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended that he was born and brought up at Village Fingwa in the district of Barpeta. He also contended that his grandfather's name (Abed Ali) appeared in the voter list of 1965 along with his Uncles and mother. He also contended that his Uncle's name (Sukur Ali) appeared in the voters' list of 1971 and that his own name along with his wife Rezia Khatun appeared in the voters' list of 1997.
4. Above were the grounds projected by the petitioner to claim that he is an Indian citizen. The learned Tribunal discussing the evidence on record has returned the following findings in para 9 of the impugned judgement :-
WP(C) 4071/13 oral dated 25/08/15 Page 2 of 10"a) In the instant case, the OP has projected late Abed Ali S/ o. R iazuddin as his grandfather and Late K udus Ali as his father. But except the statem ent of the OP m ade in his Affidavit, there is no corroborative or any trustw orthy evidence on record to show that Late Abed Ali s/ o R iazuddin, w hose nam e appears as a voter in the voters' list of 1965 (Ex -A), is the grandfather of the OP or Late Kuddus Ali (the projected father of the OP) is the son of said Abed Ali. The linkage certificate (Ex -F) show s that one Rahim uddin (OP in this case) s/ o.
K uddus Ali (even if it is accepted that R ahim Ali and R ahim uddin is one and the sam e person) is a resident of village Finguw a but there is nothing in Ex -F to show that Late K udus Ali w as the son of Late Abed Ali and or the aforesaid R ahim uddin w as born in that village. It is sated in Ex-F that the nam e of the father of R ahim uddin appears w ritten in Ex -A but on careful perusal of Ex-A it appears clear that there is nothing to show that R ahim uddin is the son of Kuddus or that the nam e of any Kuddus Ali is show n in Ex -A as a voter.
(b) The OP has further stated in his evidence in chief that his father died before 1965 and that his grandfather died after 1965. By saying so he w ants to convey that because his father died before 1965, his (his father's) nam e did not appear in Ex - A. Further if the statem ent of the OP to the effect that his father died before 1965 is accepted as true, the statem ent that his (OP's) nam e appeared in Ex-C and Ex -D along w ith the nam e of his step m other Sibarun Nessa cannot be accepted as true because if Sibarun Nessa is his step m other than she should have m arried OP's father before his (father of OP) death i.e. before 1965 and in that case her nam e should also have been recorded in Ex-A along w ith the nam e of the actual projected m other of the OP, nam ely Yarian. In Ex -C the age of WP(C) 4071/13 oral dated 25/08/15 Page 3 of 10 Sibaran Nessa (the projected step m other of the OP) is recorded as 60 years in 1989 and if it is so, she should have born in or about 1929 and as such she w as eligible to be a voter in 1950 (after 21 years from the date of her birth i.e. 1929). If her (Projected step m other of the OP) nam e appears in Ex-C and Ex-D it can w ell be presum ed that she w as alive at least till 1997 but there is no ex planation or clarification on record as to w hy her nam e w as not recorded in any of the voters' lists of 1965, 1970, 1971 and 1985 and as to w hy no such voters' list show ing her nam e has been subm itted and proved in this case.
(c) The OP has stated that the nam es of his uncles Hayat Ali, Pulm at Ali and Sukur Ali are recorded in Ex -A but there is nothing on record to show as to w hy the voters' list of 1970 show ing their nam es therein could not be filed. The am ended voters' list of 1971 (Ex -B) also did not show the nam es of Hayat Ali and Pulm at Ali as voters. It show s only the nam e of Sukur Ali and his tw o w ives. None of the aforesaid projected uncles of the OP has been ex am ined as a w itness in this case to prove that the OP is the son of their ow n brother Late K uddus Ali.
(d) If w e go through the cross-ex am ination portion of OP's evidence, w e get som e m ore interesting facts. In the Affidavit filed by the OP along w ith his w ritten statem ent as w ell as in the evidence-in-chief filed by him on Affidavit, the OP has m entioned his age as 53 years in 2013. He has also adm itted in his cross-ex am ination that his present age is 53 years. Therefore, according to his ow n declaration and statem ent on oath he should have been born in or about 1960. In his cross- ex am ination, the OP has stated that his father died w hen he w as about 12 years of age. If that is so, his father m ust have been alive at least till 1972 ahd as such the statem ent of the OP m ade in his evidence-in-chief as w ell as in his w ritten argum ent WP(C) 4071/13 oral dated 25/08/15 Page 4 of 10 to the effect that his father died before 1965 or 1966 is apparently incorrect. The aforesaid statem ents w ere m ade, in m y considered view , to convey and to m ake this Tribunal believe that his father's nam e did not appear in Ex -A because he (the projected father of the OP) died prior to 1965 or 1966.
(e) The OP has further stated in his cross-exam ination that his step m other died after about five years of the death of his father. This statem ent is also self contradictory because in his evidence-in-chief, he has specifically stated that the nam e of his step m other is recorded in the voters' lists of 1989 and 1997 w hich he has ex hibited as Ex -C and Ex-D respectively in this case. If the father of the OP, as per OP's ow n statem ents m ade in his evidence-in-chief and the w ritten argum ent, had died before 1965 or 1966, then as per his statem ent m ade in his cross-ex am ination that his step m other died after five years of the death of his father is apparently incorrect because in that case his step m other's nam e could not have been recorded in the voters' lists of 1989 (Ex -C) and 1997 (Ex -D).
(f) The OP has also stated in his cross-ex am ination that there does not appear the nam e of his father K uddus Ali as a voter in the voters' lists of 1965 (Ex -A) and 1971 (Ex -B) but that it should have been there. He has also stated that at the tim e of the death of his father, his father, his uncles and other m em bers of their fam ilies used to live together but that he does not know as to w hy the nam e of his father is not recorded in Ex-A and Ex-B.
(g) In Ex-C the age of the OP is recorded as 35 years in 1989 w hereas in Ex -D his age is recorded as 39 years in 1997 (after eight years from 1989). Further his age is show n as 46 years in Ex-E in the years 2005. There is no ex planation in this respect also."
WP(C) 4071/13 oral dated 25/08/15 Page 5 of 105. Independent of the above findings, I have also verified the records of the Tribunal in reference to the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Ex-A is the voters' list of 1965 in which the name of the father of the petitioner Kuddus Ali does not appear. The purported linkage certificate Ex-F issued by the Gaonbura of the particular village is in the name of Rahim Uddin, does not show that the Late Kuddus Ali was the son of Late Abed Ali and that Rahimuddin was born in the particular village.
6. The petitioner in his evidence stated that his father had died before 1965 and his grandfather died after 1965. If that be so, his step mother was married to his father before 1965. However, the petitioner placing reliance on the Ext. C & D voters' lists of 1989 and 1997, projected one Sibaran Nessa as his step mother. That apart, as discussed in the judgement of the learned Tribunal, if the step mother of the petitioner was born in 1929, her name ought to have appeared in the voters' lists of 1965, 1970, 1971 and 1985 but the petitioner failed to produce any document.
7. In the proceeding before the Tribunal, the petitioner claimed that he was 53 years of age in 2013 and if that be so he was born in or about 1960. In the cross examination he stated that his father died when he was about 12 years of age. In that case, his father was alive till 1972 but in his evidence in chief as well as in his written argument, he contended that his father died before 1965.
8. As has been held by the Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonow al Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 2920 , the burden of proof lies on the proceedee that he is not a Foreigner. The petitioner miserably failed to discharge his burden of proof. That apart, mere exhibition of some documents without WP(C) 4071/13 oral dated 25/08/15 Page 6 of 10 proving the contents thereof is not enough. In this connection, para 31 of the judgement is quoted below :-
"31. Under the Law of Evidence also, it is necessary that contents of docum ents are required to be proved either by prim ary or by secondary evidence. At the m ost, adm ission of docum ents m ay am ount to adm ission of contents but not its truth. Docum ents having not been produced and m arked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the Curt. Contents of the docum ent cannot be proved by m erely filing in a court."
9. Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the Division Bench judgement of this Court reported in 2015(2) GLT 617 (Abdul M atali @ M ataleb (M D) vs. Union of India and others ) submits that the petitioner having discharged his burden of proof, the onus is shifted to the prosecution and the said onus having not been discharged, the Tribunal could not have passed the impugned order. In the Full Bench judgement of this Court in State of Assam Vs. M oslem M ondal reported in 2013 (1) GLT 809 , discussing the issue relating to burden of proof, which has also been discussed in Sarbananda Sonow al (Supra ), it has been held thus :-
"78. In a proceeding under the Foreigners Act, 1946 read w ith 1964 Order the issue is w hether the proceedee is a foreigner. It being a fact especially w ithin the know ledge of the proceedee, the burden of proving that he is a citizen is, therefore, upon him , because of Section 9 of the 1946 Act and it is, therefore, his obligation to provide enough evidence to establish that he is not a foreigner. In an ex -parte proceeding before the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of 1964 Order the said position w ould not be changed as the burden of proving that the proceedee is not a foreigner continues to be upon the proceedee, w hich cannot shift and w hen the proceedee does not adduce any evidence to discharge such burden, the Tribunal has no WP(C) 4071/13 oral dated 25/08/15 Page 7 of 10 alternative but to opine the proceedee as a foreigner, having regard to the m ain grounds on w hich the reference has been initiated and the notice having been issued to the proceedee. Unlike in a suit in the Civil Court, w here the Court m ay require the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove his case even in an ex - parte proceeding, as the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in view of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, in a proceeding before the Tribunal under the provisions of 1946 Act read w ith 1964 Order, the sam e is not required, m eaning thereby that the State is not required to adduce evidence in an ex-parte proceeding, as the burden lies on the proceedee to prove to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that he is not a foreigner, in view of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the 1946 Act.
86. In M oslem M ondal's case the Division Bench, in paragraph 53, though has rightly opined that the burden of proof under Section 9 of the 1946 Act is not on the State but on the person, w hose nationality is in question, is w ell recognized in this country and in paragraph 62 that it cannot be reasonably ex pected to have divested the State of the opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal, it has, how ever, having regard to an ex - parte proceeding, in paragraph 86, held that the Tribunal cannot render an opinion that the proceedee is a foreigner m erely because he did not respond to the notice and as the Tribunal, even in an ex-parte proceeding is required to render its opinion, the State cannot be absolved of its burden to prove the truth of the grounds on w hich they claim the proceedee to be a foreigner. It has further been held that if the State establishes by bringing such m aterials, w hich w ould establish the truth of the assertion m ade in the reference, the Tribunal w ould be free to give its opinion if it finds that the grounds are sufficient to hold the proceedee a foreigner. It has also been opined that the evidence WP(C) 4071/13 oral dated 25/08/15 Page 8 of 10 to be given by the State w ould how ever confine to the ground on w hich the State rests its case and it w ill have no responsibility to prove, apart from the grounds w hich the State m ust prove, that the proceedee is not an Indian citizen. The Division Bench at the sam e tim e has opined that w hen it is stated that the 'burden of proof' is on a foreigner to prove that he is an Indian citizen, w hat it m eans is that if the proceedee claim s to be an Indian citizen, he has the burden to establish his claim of being an Indian citizen, because the State is not expected to prove a negative fact, nam ely, that the proceedee is not an Indian citizen.
87. A Division Bench of this Court in Prafulla Sarkar (supra) has held that the Tribunal, in the absence of any oral evidence by the com plainant in support of the allegation that the petitioner w as a foreigner, w as not justified in relying upon Section 9 of the 1946 Act to record the finding that the petitioner could not discharge his burden and therefore, he could safely be declared as foreign national.
88. The aforesaid view taken by the Division Bench in M oslem M ondal's case, m ore particularly in paragraph 86 thereof, as w ell as in Prafulla Sarkar (supra) is contrary to the law laid dow n by the Apex Court, as discussed above, including in Sarbananda Sonow al(I) and Sarbananda Sonow al (II) (supra), as w ell as the legal provisions noticed above, particularly Section 9 of the 1946 Act, and hence is not the correct proposition of law . The decision in the M oslem M ondal's case and Prafulla Sarkar (supra), therefore, w ould be confined to those cases only."
10. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition, now the Superintendent of Police (B), Barpeta shall ensure that the petitioner is arrested and detained in the detention camp till his deportation to his country of WP(C) 4071/13 oral dated 25/08/15 Page 9 of 10 origin i.e. Bangladesh. The Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta shall ensure deletion of the name of the petitioner from the voter list, if any.
11. Let the matter be listed again after one month so as to submit report by the Superintendent of Police (B) Barpeta about the action taken in the terms of this order.
12. Registry shall send down the case records to the learned court below along with a copy of this judgement and order. A copy of the judgement and order may also be furnished to Mr. Noor Mohammad, learned State Counsel as well as Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned ASGI, for their immediate necessary follow up action. Copies shall also be sent to the SP(B), Barpeta and Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, for their immediate follow up action.
JUDGE Sukhamay WP(C) 4071/13 oral dated 25/08/15 Page 10 of 10