Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY
Mohd.Kamal Khan - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-20-61
CITIZENSHIP - INDIAN CITIZENSHIP - DETERMINATION OF - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - SECTION 9 (2) OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955 - INTERPRETATION - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP - DISTINCTION BETWEEN DETERMINATION OF CITIZENSHIP AND DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP - CIVIL COURTS' JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE CITIZENSHIP.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, claiming to be Indian citizens by birth, went to Pakistan to establish a branch office but were unable to return due to restrictions imposed by both India and Pakistan. They obtained Pakistani passports and visas to return to India in 1955. After the expiry of their visas, they were served with an order to leave India. They filed a suit for a declaration that they were Indian citizens and renounced any Pakistani citizenship.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that it had no jurisdiction to determine the question of citizenship under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Issues: 1. Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to determine the citizenship of a person who claims to be an Indian citizen by birth but has obtained a Pakistani passport and visa. 2. Whether Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts to determine the citizenship of a person.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, provides that the Central Government shall determine whether an Indian citizen has acquired the citizenship of another country. 2. However, this provision does not oust the jurisdiction of civil courts to determine the citizenship of a person who claims to be an Indian citizen by birth but has obtained a Pakistani passport and visa. 3. The question of whether a person is an Indian citizen or not is distinct from the question of whether a person having once been an Indian citizen has renounced that citizenship and acquired a foreign nationality. 4. Civil courts have jurisdiction to determine the question of citizenship, while the Central Government has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the question of loss of citizenship.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for disposal according to law.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgement of the First Additional City Civil Judge, Hyderabad, rejecting the plaintiffs suit on the ground that it is not entertainable by a Civil Court having regard to Section 9 ( read with Rule 30 of the Citizenship Act, 57 of 1955 (here-inafter referred to as the Act ).
( 2 ) THE plaintiff-appellant averred that he was an Indian citizen by birth and that he had gone to Pakistan to establish a branch office, but after he went there due to difficulties and restrictions imposed by India and Pakistan respectively on the migration of people from one side to the other, he was not in a position to cone back and though he made attempts to get a no objection certificate from the Indian High Commissioner, he was ultimately forced to obtain a Pakistani passport and visa from the Government of India and return to India in or about 1955. His wife and children plaintiffs 2, 3, 4 and 7 returned earlier in 1954. After the expiry of the visa he was served with an order to leave india. Thereupon the appellants filed a writ petition in High Court which was ultimately withdrawn. They also filed a declaration to say that if by force of any statute or provision of law, they are deemed to be Pakistani citizens, they renounce that citizenship.
( 3 ) THE trial court held that having regard to Articles 5 and 7 and section 9 (2) read with Rule 30 it is only the Central Government that can determine the question the question of whether he is a citizen or not. in that view it dismissed the suit.
( 4 ) IN this appeal the learned Advocate for the appellants, Sri vaidya contends that the trial court was in error in holding that it had no jurisdiction for the reason that Section 9 (2) does not providea remedy and at any rateit postulates that a person with respect to whom the Central Government may determine, must first be an Indian citizen. Where, however, it is denied that he is ever an Indian citizen and the claim is for a declaration that heis one whether under the Constitution or under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, civil courts cannot refuse to entertain the petition to determine that question. The learned second Government Advocate Sri Shankar Rao, on the other hand contends that where there is a statue governing the subject of the citizenship and that statue provides for specific mode of ascertaining whether a person is a citizen or not there is an ouster of the Civil Courts jurisdiction. In support of this he had cited several decisions to which it is unnecessary to refer, as that proposition cannot be disputed.
( 5 ) THE only question in this case is whether the appellants are citizens of India, then the other question would ariseas to whether they have lost that nationality. If the Central Government have reason to believe that a citizen of India has lost his nationlity by acquiring voluntarily the nationality of another country, it alone has power to enquire into the matter after giving due notice to such person and to require him to establish that hehas not acquired the nationality of another country. This is the effect of section 9 (2) read with Rule 30. I am relieved of the necessity to refer to a number of authorities on this point having regard to the latest unreported pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Abdul Khader, Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 1959, D/ 4-4-1961 : (Since reported in AIR 1961 SC 1467 ). In that case a certain person was convicted by the Judicial Magistrateof Adoni under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 which conviction was sustained by the Sessions Judge, Kurnool. In a revision to this Court the petition was allowed and the conviction was set aside. It may be stated that on the evidence the person convicted had left India at the end of 1954 or early 1955 and returned to India on 20/01/1955on a passport granted by the Government of Pakistan dated 10/01/1955 with a visa issued by the Government of India authori
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.