1999 Supreme(AP) 263

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, VAMAN RAO
R.Venkateshwara Rao - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 04-23-99

Headnote:Citizenship Act, 1955 - Sections 5(1)(c), 6 ; Constitution of India - Articles 11, 51-A(b), 51-A(C) and 102(1)(d) - Citizenship by Registration and Naturalization - Validity - Legislative policy spelt out in citizenship Act, no way derogatory to any of the Consitutitonal provisions - No grounds made out to strike down any provisions of the Act.

       Held : While the fundamental rights are enforceable against the State and its instrumentalities coming within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution, fundamental" duties are not enforceable. They are only in the nature of guidance addressed to the citizens in contrast to fundamental rights, which are addressed to the State and its instrumentalities. But, if any statute conforms to the fundamental duties, the same cannot be challenged as being violative of Part III of the Constitution, subject to, of course, legislative competency. As such, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that this Court owes a duty to restrain the 8th respondent from contesting to the post of Prime Minister cannot be countenanced. Equally, the contention that in view of the fundamental duties under Article 51a (b) and (c) read with Article 102 (1) (d) of Constitution of India, Section 5 (1) (c) of the Act cannot confer the rights on 8th respondent to contest for any political post, is untenable. One need not traverse to any Dictionary, much less, Black s Dictionary to cull out the meaning of allegiance/adherence. Contextually, they connote the obligation of a subject/citizen to be loyal to the State and follow its Constitution and laws made thereunder. There is no such instance brought to the notice of this Court, by which it can be said that the 8th respondent does not owe allegiance to the Constitution of India and that still she owes allegiance/ adherence to Italy. Further, the objectives underlying Article 51a (b) and (c) as also Article 102 (l) (d) of Indian Constitution are firmly embedded in Section 10 (2xb) of the Act, which vest the Central Government with the power of dealing such a situation.

       Citizenship is a relationship of sovereign and subject and so far as Indian Constitution or the Citizenship Act are concerned, no distinction is drawn in the status of citizen - whether a born citizen (Section 3), citizen by descent (Section 4) or citizen by registration (Section 5 (1) (a) to (d) ). The citizens under the above legal provisions arc treated on par and are entitled for all civil and political rights. There is a distinction drawn only with regard to citizenship under Section 5 (1) (e) as also Section 6 (1) of the Act. Question of reciprocity as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is relevant only in the context of the citizenship conferred on foreign nationals under the above two legal provisions - Section 5 (I) (e) and Section 6 (1) of the Act. While under Section 5 (I) (e) of the Act, a person is admitted as a citizen of India, subject to such rights the native Indians enjoy in the countries enumerated in the First Schedule of the Act, insofar as citizen by naturalisation under Section 6 (1) of the Act is concerned, no subject or citizen of any country where citizens of India are prevented by law or practice of that country from becoming subjects or citizens of that country by naturalisation, can be naturalised as Indian citizens.

       From the above discussion, it is clear that for conferment of citizenship by registration under Section 5 (I) (c) of the Act, no reciprocity has been imposed by the Parliament. Under Section 5 (I) (c) of the Act, there are twin conditions for acquiring the citizenship viz. , (i) marriage to an Indian citizen and (ii) 5 years stay in India at the time of making application for registration as a citizen. It is not in dispute that the 8th respondent had complied these conditions and as such, was conferred with the status of Indian citizenship by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 5 (I) (c) of the Act. It is for the Parliament, which is the legislative body, to prescribe conditions while conferring citizenship; but merely because conditions have not been prescribed, thus, enabling the citizen of foreign origin to contest for the political post, it cannot be said that the provision is unconstitutional. As already stated above, Indian Constitution does not enumerate the conditions for conferring citizenship and vested the Parliament with the power of framing legislative policy on the said subject and as the legislative policy is within the exclusive domain of the Parliament both by virtue of Article 11 as also Hem 17 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, we hold that the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 are unassailable. The Court is not answerable to the query of (he learned Counsel for the petitioner as to why Indian Constitution or the Act did not make a provision akin to that of the Constitutions of United States of America, Mexico, Argentina and Philippines where non-natural born citizens are barred from holding the high political post of President and even becoming the Members of Legislative bodies as in the case of Philippines. Each country frames ils own Constitution and laws and they cannot be drawn as parallels to view the issue of this nature and suffice it to say that it is not for the Courts to spell out any policy on citizenship and it is for the Parliament to spell out its policy and as the legislative policy spelt out in the Citizenship Act, 1955, is in no way derogatory to any of the provisions of the Constitution.