SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(AP) 172

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Syed Mohd.Khan - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-04-57

Rule 3 of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, which makes the obtaining of a passport from a foreign country conclusive proof of voluntary acquisition of citizenship of that country, is beyond the rule-making power conferred by section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Headnote:

CITIZENSHIP - VOLUNTARY ACQUISITION OF FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP - CESSER OF INDIAN CITIZENSHIP - SECTION 9 OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955 - RULE 3 OF SCHEDULE III OF THE CITIZENSHIP RULES, 1956 - VALIDITY - REASONABLENESS - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - ARTICLE 14 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

Appellants, born in British India, migrated to India after partition and obtained passports from Pakistan. The respondent, acting under section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and rule 3 of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, directed the appellants to leave the country on the ground that they had voluntarily acquired Pakistani citizenship by obtaining passports.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provides for the cesser of Indian citizenship upon voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship, is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it does not confer arbitrary or unregulated power on the Central Government. The Court also held that the provisions of section 9 constitute a reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the appellants under Article 19 of the Constitution, as they are conceived in the interests of the general public. However, the Court found that rule 3 of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, which makes the obtaining of a passport from a foreign country conclusive proof of voluntary acquisition of citizenship of that country, is beyond the rule-making power conferred by section 9 of the Act and is, therefore, void.

Issues: 1. Whether section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India by conferring arbitrary and unregulated power on the Central Government? 2. Whether the provisions of section 9 constitute an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the appellants under Article 19 of the Constitution? 3. Whether rule 3 of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, is beyond the rule-making power conferred by section 9 of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, does not confer arbitrary or unregulated power on the Central Government, as it provides a clear and precise formulation of the question to be decided and directs the authority prescribed by the Central Government to decide the question judicially in the manner prescribed. 2. The provisions of section 9 constitute a reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the appellants under Article 19 of the Constitution, as they are conceived in the interests of the general public and are necessary to prevent dual citizenship. 3. Rule 3 of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, is beyond the rule-making power conferred by section 9 of the Act, as it makes the obtaining of a passport from a foreign country conclusive proof of voluntary acquisition of citizenship of that country, even though a passport is not legal evidence of citizenship.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals, issued writs of mandamus directing the respondent to forbear from enforcing the orders directing the appellants to leave the country, and held that the view expressed in the appeals will not preclude the Central Government from determining the question of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship by the appellants in accordance with the prescribed rules, ignoring rule 3 of Schedule III, which was held to be beyond the rule-making power.

SUBBA RAO, CJ.

( 1 ) THESE are appeals against the judgment of our learned brother bhimasankaram, J,, in a batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the various appellants for the issue of writs of mandamus or other appropriate writs directing the responent to forbear from enforcing the orders directing the appellants to quit the State within a prescribed date.

( 2 ) THE material facts are similar in all the appeals. It would be sufficient therefore, as the learned Judge did, to state the facts in Writ Appeal No. 53 of 1957. The appellant was born on 5th October, 1912, in the Village of Thukhayi, Tehsil barshore, Taluk Pishin, Quetta District in Baluchistan, which was formerly a part of British India. In 1940, he left his native place and settled down at Kowur, which was then part of Madras State and is now part of Andhra Pradesh. He started business in that place and was eking out his livelihood. He married at Kowur one Amirunnisa, whose father was a permanent resident of that place and was employed in Government service, and his two children weie born and bred up there. He purchased a site and constructed a house worth about Rs. 10,000 and he has also been doing lorry transport business. He alleges that, after the division of india, under pressure from the local Police and without proper guidance and appreciation of his citizenship rights, he applied for a passport and received one bearing no. 070443 unde the seal of the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India, New delhi, dated 7th March, 1953, valid upto 6th March, 1958. He also states that he was required by the local Police to make an application for visa to regularise his tay in India but the respondent refused to grant visa. By an older, dated 7th April, 1955, the respondent directed him to quit the State by 30th April, 1955. The affidavits filed by the other appellants in the connected appeals also contain silmilar allegations. They were also directed by the respondent by separate orders to quit the state. On the basis of the above facts, the aforesaid writs were filed and they were disposed of by a common order by Bhimasankaram, J. Before Bhimasankaram, J. , it was contended that the appellants were citizens of india within the meaning of Articles 5 and 6 of the Constitution of India, that the mere obtaining of a passport from Pakistan, which was not a foreign State within the meaning of the Constitution, did not have the effect of depriving them of their citizenship and that they applied for the passpoit under the mistaken impression that persons born in the area now forming part of Pakistan were not citizens of India. Bhimasankaram, J. , found that the appellants were citizens of India and that they did not voluntarily acquire citizenship of Pakistan by the time of the commencement of the Constitution. But the learned Judge held that there was an automatic statutory cesser of citizenship by virtue of section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which came into force on 30th December, 1955. On that basis, he dismissed the petitions but presumably because the said Act came into force only after the petitions were filed, he did not make any order as to the costs of the petitions. The petitioners have preferred the above appeals.

( 3 ) THE arguments of the learned advocates for the appellants could be better appreciated if the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, the Citizenship act, 1955 and the rules made thereunder are lead at this stage. The said provisions, omitting the immaterial portions thereof, are as follows :"constitution of India. Article 5 -At the commencement of this Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and (a) who was born in the territory of India or (b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India or (c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India. Art














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top