The judgment emphasizes that relinquishing Nepali Citizenship does not automatically confer Indian Citizenship, and the procedure for acquiring Indian Citizenship under the Citizenship Act must be followed.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Karol, C.J. - The primary issue for consideration before this Court is whether the appellant is a citizen of India or not.

2. Elaborately, the following issues arise for considerations in this appeal: -

(i) Was the State Election Commission empowered to set aside the appellant''s election under Section 136(1) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 on the ground of her not being an Indian citizen?

(ii) Whether voluntarily relinquishing Citizenship of Nepal confers any right of Indian Citizenship upon the appellant?

(iii) Can the appellant''s voter ID Card; PAN Card; Aadhaar Card; acquiring education or immovable property in India; having a Bank Account, function as proof of Indian Citizenship?

(iv) Whether the appellant was disqualified from being elected to or function as Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat in Bihar?

(v) Can the appellant''s status of Statelessness be remedied as per Indian Law?

3. The present appeal arises from an order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dated January 21, 2020, by which the appellant''s writ petition assailing the order of the State Election Commission dated August 30, 2019, stands dismissed. The appellant''s election is set aside on the ground of disqualification contained under sub-section 1(a) of Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.

4. The appellant, Kiran Gupta, was born and brought up in Nepal. On 18th June 2003, she solemnized her marriage with Ashok Prasad Gupta and after that started permanently residing with him in India as his wife. It is not in dispute that after her marriage, she, (a) got her name entered into the voters list prepared in the year 2008 for elections to the Assembly of Bihar; (b)in her name she has (i) an account with a bank in India, (ii) a Pan Card issued by the Income Tax Department, and (iii) an Aadhaar Card; (c) names of her children born out of the wedlock are registered in India under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the respective Rules framed thereunder; (d) pursued her higher education in India; (e) purchased an immovable property in India, vide sale deed dated 12th December 2017. The sale stands recorded with an entry of mutation in her name for which also she paid fee/rent to the Government of Bihar; and (g) relinquished her Nepali Citizenship on February 24, 2016.

5. The issue of her nationality became the subject matter of challenge in the year 2018 after she was elected as a Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, ManikChouk, Block-Runnisaidpur, District-Sitamarhi.

6. Ranjit Kumar Rai @ Ranjit Rai, (private respondent No.8) challenged her election on the ground of disqualification which she entailed under sub-section 1(a) of Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Panchayat Act'').

7. Vide order dated 30thAugust 2019, the competent authority, i.e., The State Election Commission, set aside her election, which action she challenged by way of a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment 21stJanuary 2020, passed in CWJC No.19109 of 2019 titled Kiran Gupta Versus the State Election Commission & Ors., dismissed her petition by relying upon the provisions of Articles 173 and 243F of the Constitution of India and the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955.The Court held the appellant to have voluntarily relinquished her Citizenship of Nepal on February 24, 2016, and as such not being a citizen of India, entailed disqualification under the Panchayat Act.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. The Issue No. (i) is well settled. The State Election Commission was empowered to set aside the appellant''s election under Section 136 (1) of the Panchayat Act. The decision rendered by this Court in Dhanwanti Devi v. The State Election Commission, (2012) 1 PLJR 296 , relied upon by the appellant, does not apply in the given facts. The appellant herself acknowledged that she was born and raised in Nepal before h