Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 75
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Jyoti Tobi Jones – Petitioner
VERSUS
The Additional Secretary To The Government & Ors. – Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12912 of 2024
Decided On : 08-01-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, Adv. Mr. Anas Tanwir, AOR Mr. Ebad Ur Rahman, Adv. Ms. Sonal Kushwah, Adv. Mr. Suryaansh Kishan Razdan, Adv. Mr. Abhas Upmanyu, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. Aswani Satheesh, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Singh, Adv. Mr. K.M.nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Diwakar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Prasenjeet Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Diwakar Sharma, Adv
The court upheld the High Court's order regarding the petitioner's detention while directing timely processing of his citizenship application to prevent indefinite confinement.
Headnote:(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66D - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 465, and 468 - The petitioner, a Nigerian citizen, challenged his confinement in a Special Detention Camp after being arrested for alleged offenses. The High Court's refusal to grant relief was upheld, but the Union was directed to process the petitioner's citizenship application within three months. (Paras 1, 4, 8)
(B) Citizenship - The Union must decide on the petitioner's citizenship application promptly to avoid indefinite detention, considering the petitioner's marriage to an Indian citizen. (Paras 7, 10)
ORDER
1. On 18.10.2024, this Court passed the following order:-
“1. The applicant before us is a Nigerian citizen. According to him, he got married with an Indian Lady in 2019. A First Information Report came to be lodged against him at the Police Station Tirunelveli, OCD – II, bearing FIR No. 27 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 66D of the Information and Technology Act and Sections 406, 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the “IPC”).
2 After his arrest in connection with aforesaid FIR, he was ordered to be released on bail by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli vide order dated 17th April, 2024. It appears that before the applicant could furnish bail bond and get himself released, a Government Order came to be passed by the State of Tamil Nadu dated 26th April, 2024 ordering his confinement in a Special Detention Camp.
3 The Government Order referred to above came to be challenged by the applicant before the High Court. The challenge failed.
4 In such circumstances, he is here before this court with the present petition.
5 According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, his client had a valid Visa when he came to India. However, the validity period of the Visa expired and in such circumstances, he had to apply for extension of the same. He further pointed out that he has also applied with the Government of India for Indian citizenship, since he has married to a lady from the State of Uttar Pradesh.
6 We have no idea what is the status of his application seeking extension of Visa or how the same has been dealt with by the authorities concerned. We also have no idea what is the status of his application seeking Indian Citizenship. All that has been pointed out to us is that his wife, as on date, is residing in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
7 Prima facie, it could be said that his stay in the country as on date is illegal because he has no valid Visa for stay in the country.
8 In such circumstances, we permit the petitioner to implead the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of External Affairs.
9 Let notice be issued to the newly impleaded respondents returnable within two weeks.
10 On the next date of hearing, the authority concerned, i.e., the newly impleaded respondent shall file a report before this Court as regards the status of the Visa and other documents of the petitioner before us.”
2. When this matter was last heard, it was brought to our notice that the petitioner, a Nigerian citizen, has been arrested in connection with one another offence and was taken in judicial custody.
3. Today we are informed that the petitioner has been ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with the said offence. Therefore, the apprehension as expressed by the learned senior counsel Mr. Shoeb Alam appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that he will be once again confined to the Detention Camp.
4. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a citizen of Nigeria alleged to have been found in possession of bogus visas and other documents, we are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, the petitioner must know where he stands so far as his request for citizenship of this country is concerned.
5. The Learned ASG would submit that the concerned Ministry is waiting for certain information to be provided by the State of Uttar Pradesh because the petitioner applied for citizenship from Kanpur.
6. We are of the view that the Union must take an appropriate decision in accordance with law one way or the other.
7. If the citizenship is to be declined then the Union must say so as early as possible and if it is to be granted then it may proceed accordingly. To keep this petitioner in a detention camp for an indefinite period is also not proper. We are informed that he is married to a lady who is an Indian Citizen.
8. In su
