Gauhati High Court Upholds Foreigner Declaration, Says Contradictory Testimony Can't Be Excused On Basis Of Unproven Mental Illness
The Gauhati High Court has upheld an order of the Foreigners Tribunal declaring a man to be foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, while holding that contradictory statements made by him during the proceedings could not be explained on the basis of an unproven claim of mental illness. A Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan observed that a mere...
The Gauhati High Court has upheld an order of the Foreigners Tribunal declaring a man to be foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, while holding that contradictory statements made by him during the proceedings could not be explained on the basis of an unproven claim of mental illness.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan observed that a mere prescription from a mental health institute, without any material establishing that the petitioner was suffering from a mental illness, was insufficient to explain the inconsistencies in his testimony.
"In the instant case, only a prescription is relied upon, which is not sufficient to hold that the proceedee is a psychiatric patient... As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a mental patient and that his statements cannot be believed," it said.
The case of the petitioner was that he was suffering from a mental disease and was a patient at the Lokopriya Gopinath Bordoloi Regional Institute of Mental Health. In support of his case, he relied upon an OPD ticket, prescribing him medicines for mental illness.
In support of his citizenship, the petitioner relied on certain voter lists, a registered sale deed, certificates issued by the Gram Panchayat and a school certificate. He also claimed that his father had appeared as a voter before the cut-off date of 25.03.1971.
The petitioner further contended that the contradictions in his written statement and evidence arose because of his mental illness and that the Tribunal had failed to consider the materials produced by him.
The High Court, however, noted that the petitioner had not taken recourse to Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 which provides that if a person is found to be suffering from mental illness, the Court may refer the said person for examination by a Board, consisting of medical experts and on a report being furnished by the said board, the Court will take the necessary precautions.
It also found that he had never apprised the Tribunal that he required personal assistance and had merely relied upon a medical prescription.
The Court further found several contradictions between the statements of the petitioner and his projected wife regarding his family members and land. It also held that the certificates issued by the Gram Panchayat and the school authorities could not be relied upon since the issuing authorities were not examined as defence witnesses.
The voter lists also did not establish the petitioner's link with his projected father, it said.
"In the Voter list of 1966, the projected father of the petitioner, namely, Abdul Jabbar was shown as a single voter, without the names of other relatives. Same is the case of the 1971 Voter list. In subsequent Voter list of 1993, although, the name of the petitioner was shown as a voter, but, he was shown as the son of A. Jabbar. The petitioner has not placed any Voter list wherein, his name is shown along with his father's name," it observed.
The Court further said that the discrepancy in the present case was not just one in number, "but there are many discrepancies between the statements given by the petitioner and by his projected wife and the same has raised suspicion with regard to the identity of the petitioner as well as the relation between the petitioner and DW-2 (wife)."
Holding that the petitioner had failed to establish his link with his projected father by way of valid documents before the Tribunal, the Court held, "The link was also not established by the petitioner to his projected father by way of valid documents before the learned Tribunal. As such, this Court is of the view that the Opinion dated 28.03.2017... does not call for any interference."
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Name: Farjul Haque @ Md. Faizul @ Fazlul Hoque v. Union of India & 5 Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 91
Case No.: WP(C)/5227/2019