A person who is a British subject by virtue of a naturalization certificate granted to his father under the Indian Naturalization Act, 1926, and who was born at a time when his father still held the naturalization certificate, is a "natural-born British subject" within the meaning of Section 2(a)(i) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and cannot be considered a "foreigner" against whom an order of externment can be issued under the Act.

Headnote:
FOREIGNERS ACT - CITIZENSHIP - FOREIGNER - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - BRITISH SUBJECT - NATURALIZATION - REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE - SECTION 2(A)(I), 3, 7(2), 8(7) OF THE INDIAN NATURALIZATION ACT, 1926 - SECTION 2(A)(I) OF THE FOREIGNERS ACT, 1946 - ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 372(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SECTION 6 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - A person who is a British subject by virtue of a naturalization certificate granted to his father under the Indian Naturalization Act, 1926, and who was born at a time when his father still held the naturalization certificate, is a "natural-born British subject" within the meaning of Section 2(a)(i) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and cannot be considered a "foreigner" against whom an order of externment can be issued under the Act.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, born in India to an Iranian father who held a naturalization certificate issued under the Indian Naturalization Act, 1926, challenged an order issued by the Union of India under the Foreigners Act, 1946, directing him to leave India. The plaintiff claimed that he was a citizen of India by virtue of domicile and residence, and that as a British subject, he could not be considered a "foreigner" under the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiff was not a "foreigner" within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and therefore could not be externed from India. The court found that the plaintiff was a British subject by virtue of the naturalization certificate granted to his father, and that this status continued to be held by the plaintiff even after the repeal of the Indian Naturalization Act, 1926, under Article 372(2) of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the plaintiff's status as a British subject could not be revoked unless the certificate deemed to be held by him under Section 8(7) of the Indian Naturalization Act was revoked by the Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was a "foreigner" within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 2. Whether the plaintiff's status as a British subject could be revoked without revoking the certificate deemed to be held by him under Section 8(7) of the Indian Naturalization Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of "foreigner" in Section 2(a)(i) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, in light of the definition of "British subject" in Section 27 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, and held that a person who is a British subject by virtue of a naturalization certificate granted to his father under the Indian Naturalization Act, 1926, and who was born at a time when his father still held the naturalization certificate, is a "natural-born British subject" within the meaning of Section 2(a)(i) of the Foreigners Act. 2. The court held that the plaintiff's status as a British subject could not be revoked without revoking the certificate deemed to be held by him under Section 8(7) of the Indian Naturalization Act, as provided under Section 9(D) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, upholding the lower court's decision that the plaintiff could not be externed from India under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

JUDGMENT - Chagla, C. J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to challenge an order dated October 22, 1951, issued by the Union of India. The order is issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act and it calls upon the plaintiff not to remain in India after the expiry of one month from the date on which the order was served on Him, and it also calls upon him to depart from India by the Port of Bombay and not thereafter to re-enter India. Various contentions were urged before the learned Judge below. The learned Judge held that, the plaintiff was a citizen of India by reason of the fact that he was domiciled in India and he-had been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution. It was urged by the plaintiff that he was born in the territory of India. That contention was rejected by the learned Judge. Having held that the plaintiff was a citizen as defined by Article 5 of the Constitution, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not be externed under the Foreigners Act.

2. Turning to the Foreigners Act, the Act docs not authorise the Government to extern all non-citizens. The only person who could be externed under the provisions of the Foreigners Act is a person who is a foreigner as defined by the Act., Therefore, it is possible for a person not to be a citizen and yet not to be a foreigner within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, we have to be satisfied that the plaintiff is a foreigner before we can uphold the order of the Government of India to extern him from this country. The Foreigners Act was adapted by the President under Article 372 (2) of the Constitution, and before adaptation the material section was in the following terms:

"Foreigner" means a person who-

(i) is not a natural-born British subject as defined in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 1 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 or

(ii) has not been granted a certificate of naturalization as a British subject under any law for the time being in force in British India, or

(iii) is not a ruler or subject of an Indian State, or

(iv) is not a native of the Assam tribal are as: Provided that any British subject who, under any law for the time being in force in British India, ceases to be a British subject shall thereupon be demed to be a foreigner,"

Now, by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, Clauses. (iii) and (iv) were deleted and a new Clause (iii) was added to the following effect: "is not a citizen of India".

3. What is contended on behalf of the plaintiff is that even though the plaintiff may not be an Indian citizen, he is a British subject and therefore not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, in order to appreciate this contention one or two relevant facts might be stated. Both the plaintiff and the plaintiffs father hail from Iran and the contention of the defendant is that both of them were born in a place in Iran called Yezd.

The plaintiff was born on April 18, 1920, and the plaintiffs lather is still alive and is at present in Iran. On July 21, 1915, a naturalization certificate was issued to the plaintiffs father by the Government of India and that certificate describes him as a native of Yezd in Persia and an inhabitant of Bombay on June 20, 1915, and the certi ficate recites that he was born at Yezd in the year 1880, that he came to Bombay in the year 1906, that he was carrying on trade as a tea shop keeper and that he desired permanently to settle in Bombay.

If further recites that the memorial presented by the memorialist was duly verified by oath on June 20, 1915. The certificate, therefore, certifies that Mahomed Hussain Haji is deemed to be a natural born, subject of His Majesty, as if he had been born within the territories subject to the Govt. of India. It is admitted that this certificate is still in force and has never been revoked, and the question that we

Click Here to Read the rest of this document