Gauhati High Court Upholds Foreigners Tribunal Decision
In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has affirmed a Foreigners Tribunal’s decision declaring Aminul Hoque, a resident of Guwahati, as a foreigner. Despite presenting 15 documents to support his claim of Indian citizenship, the court found these insufficient. The case, titled Aminul Hoque v Union of India & Ors., saw a Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan dismiss Hoque’s petition challenging the 2019 Tribunal order.
Documents Presented Fail to Establish Citizenship
Aminul Hoque, aged 38, argued his Indian citizenship by birth, citing a variety of official documents. These included the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC), electoral rolls from 1966 onwards, a 1973 land sale deed, a PAN card, an Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC), and school records, all purportedly tracing his family’s presence in Assam prior to the 1971 cut-off date. However, the court concluded that these documents failed to sufficiently prove his citizenship under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1964.
The court observed, “Though the petitioner had exhibited 15 documents as exhibits, the same does not appear to help the petitioner to establish that he has been able to discharge his burden… to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian Citizen.”
Lack of Continuous Documentary Link
The judges noted Hoque’s inability to demonstrate a continuous documentary link with his ancestors. Hoque had attributed discrepancies in the spelling of names in official records to clerical errors and justified variations in voter lists with his family’s relocation due to erosion by the Brahmaputra River. While the court was not overly concerned with minor spelling differences, it remained unconvinced by Hoque’s explanations, citing a lack of evidence proving that records from various locations pertained to the same family.
Inconsistencies in Documentation
The court identified inconsistencies in ages, family members, and places of residence across the submitted documents and noted the absence of independent evidence supporting claims of family relocations. Additionally, the court dismissed the reliability of 1951 NRC computer-generated extracts due to non-compliance with laws governing electronic records.
More Read
Identity Documents and Citizenship
The judges clarified that identity documents like PAN cards and EPICs do not alone establish citizenship. They also rejected the credibility of the 1973 land sale deed, which merely indicated a land purchase by Hoque’s alleged grandfather without establishing a familial link. Similarly, the school certificate was discounted, as its author was not examined and the original admission register was not produced.
Judgment and Legal Representation
Ultimately, the court upheld the Tribunal’s findings, noting no errors or disregard for legal provisions. “In this case in hand, the petitioner has not been able to establish that the learned Tribunal had committed any patent error,” the judgment stated, dismissing the petition and allowing the Tribunal’s 2019 order consequences to ensue.
Legal representation included Advocate MU Mahmud for Aminul Hoque, Central Government Counsel B Deka for the Union of India, Standing Counsel AI Ali for the Election Commission of India, and J Payeng for the State of Assam and associated authorities.
