Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 75
High Court Of Calcutta
Pratap Kumar Ray
SOUMEN PAUL - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
W. P. 19153 (W) Of 2001
Decided On : 02/06/2002
ASHOK BANERJEE, MRINAL KANTI KUNDU, Subrata Chaudhuri
The right to know the reason for the rejection of an application for citizenship is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
CITIZENSHIP - SECTION 5 (1) (A) OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955 - RIGHT TO KNOW THE REASON FOR REJECTION OF CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY - APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 21 TO NON-CITIZENS - RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF REASONS FOR REJECTION OF CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION - AUTHORITIES CONCERNED ARE BOUND TO ASSIGN REASONS FOR REJECTION OF CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION - FAILURE TO ASSIGN REASONS VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE - IMPUGNED DECISION QUASHED AND SET ASIDE - AUTHORITIES DIRECTED TO HEAR THE PETITIONER'S CASE AFRESH AND ADJUDICATE THE APPLICATION WITHIN FOUR WEEKS - SPECIFIC REASONS TO BE COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER WITHIN A FORTNIGHT FROM THE DATE OF DECISION - NO COERCIVE MEASURES TO BE TAKEN AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR TWO MONTHS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a non-citizen, applied for Indian citizenship under Section 5 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The District Magistrate rejected the application without assigning any reason. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 15 of the Act, but no decision was communicated to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the District Magistrate's decision was bad in law and violative of the constitutional mandate as no reason was assigned. The court also held that the petitioner's right to know the reason for the rejection of his application was a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Magistrate's decision was bad in law and violative of the constitutional mandate as no reason was assigned? 2. Whether the petitioner's right to know the reason for the rejection of his application was a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the District Magistrate's decision was bad in law and violative of the constitutional mandate as no reason was assigned. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and Ors., Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., and Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. v. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) and Ors. to hold that the right to know the reason for the rejection of an application for citizenship is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The court also held that the petitioner's right to know the reason for the rejection of his application was a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. v. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) and Ors. to hold that Article 21 of the Constitution of India applies to non-citizens as well.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the District Magistrate's decision. The court also directed the authorities concerned to hear the petitioner's case afresh and adjudicate the petitioner's application for grant of citizenship within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. The court also directed the authorities to communicate the specific reason for the decision to the petitioner within a fortnight from the date of taking the decision.
( 1 ) AFFIDAVIT of service be kept with the record. Heard the learned advocates for the parties.
( 2 ) IN this writ application it is the contention of the petitioner that despite preferring a revision under section 15 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 challenging the decision refusing the grant of Indian citizenship as passed under section 5 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') as communicated by the District Magistrate, South 24-Parganas by his communication order dated 4th June, 2001 as yet, nothing has been communicated to the petitioner about the fate of such revision. At the same time the petitioner has assailed the communication of the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (South) whereby and whereunder it was only communicated that the petitioner's application for grant of Indian citizenship was rejected. The learned advocate for the Union of India is present and he frankly submits that no instruction has been received from his clients and accordingly he cannot assist the Court. From the impugned communication of the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (South) appearing at page 50 of annexure P-5 against which the revision was filed by the petitioner under the said Act, it appears that no reason was assigned as to why the petitioner's application for grant of citizenship in terms of section 5 (1) (a) of the said Act was rejected. Section 5 (1) (a) of the said Act only provides satisfaction of two conditions for grant of the citizenship, namely, the person must be of Indian origin and secondly a continuous stay of five years. In the instant case, it appears from the submission that the petitioner's parents were of Indian origin as they were born in undivided India. After partition, parents remained in Pakistan where the present petitioner was born on 30th December, 1955. About 5 years continuous stay in India, it appears from submission of petitioner that taking into account of time as consumed to submit M. Phil thesis as a scholar of University of Pune being duly authorised to do such under Government of India's Scholarship Scheme, 1983-84 and the award of Ph. D from said University in the year 1989 as well as the period of stay till date of application for grant of citizenship, petitioner has satisfied said condition. Hence, for adjudication of any application under the said Act for citizenship the concerned authorities are required to satisfy on those two points. But very surprisingly in the instant case though the petitioner earlier moved this writ Court about the inaction of the authorities, no order assigning the reason rejecting the prayer of the petitioner has been served. Right to know the reason is a basic fundamental right. Reliance may be placed to the judgment in the case Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1994 SC 1558 wherein it has been settled that right to information and right to be informed reason, have its strong ground in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in the case Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. , reported in AIR 1989 SC 190, the Apex Court on application of Article 21 of the Constitution of India held that right to know is available to the person concerned who would suffer any decision. In the instant case though petitioner is a non-citizen but still Article 21 of the Constitution of India is applicable in his case with full vigour. In terms of the Apex Court judgment passed in the case Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. v. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) and Ors. , reported in (2000)2 SCC 465 wherein while interpreting the word 'life' as appearing in Article 21 of the Constitution of India qua the factum of payment of compensation of rape victim of a Bangladeshi citizen in Railway Yatri Nivas, Howrah, the Court held that in terms of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the life of the particular lady was disturbed and/or deprived of without any fai
