The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan, dismissed a petition challenging the decision of the Foreigners Tribunal that had declared the petitioner a foreigner. The Tribunal had relied on the petitioner’s inconsistent accounts regarding his date and place of birth, his residence prior to 25 March 1971, and the documentation he produced to establish Indian citizenship.

The petitioner sought to set aside the Tribunal’s order on the ground that the contradictions in his testimony were attributable to a mental health condition. He asserted that he suffered from a psychiatric illness and produced a prescription as evidence of treatment. The Bench examined whether such a claim could legitimately explain the discrepancies.

The Court observed that a mere allegation of mental illness, unsupported by competent medical evidence, does not suffice to excuse contradictory statements. It emphasized that under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the burden of proving a mental disorder lies on the person asserting it, and that proof must be established through appropriate clinical diagnosis, expert opinion, or hospital records. A prescription alone, without corroborating diagnostic reports or expert testimony, was held insufficient to discharge that burden.

Accordingly, the Bench held that the petitioner’s claim of mental illness remained unproven and could not be invoked to rationalise the inconsistencies in his evidence. The Tribunal’s reliance on the contradictory statements was therefore justified, and the declaration of foreigner status was upheld.

The Court further noted that the Foreigners Tribunal’s findings are entitled to deference unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, the Tribunal had considered the totality of the material, including the petitioner’s oral testimony, the documentary evidence, and the lack of substantiated medical proof. The Bench found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s conclusion.

The judgment reaffirms the principle that in proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946, a party cannot rely on vague or unsubstantiated health claims to undermine adverse factual findings. It underscores the necessity for concrete medical evidence when mental health is raised as a defence to evidentiary contradictions.

The operative outcome is that the petitioner’s application to set aside the Foreigners Tribunal’s order is dismissed, and the declaration that he is a foreigner of the post‑25 March 1971 stream remains intact.