VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 )

( 2 ) THE facts in this case are not in dispute and are in a narrow compass. The writ petition can therefore be disposed of at this stage itself.

( 3 ) THE parents of the Petitioner were afghan Nationals. According to the Petitioner s father mr. Manohar Singh, who is present in Court, he came to india along with his wife in 1979 and has since then been living in India uninterruptedly. On 27. 3. 1991 a certificate of Naturalisation has been issued by the government of India to both the parents of the petitioner. The Petitioner was born in New Delhi on 4. 2. 1984 and has already travelled outside India on an indian passport. Counsel for the Respondents have explained that this was permissible because of the naturalisation of the parents of the Petitioner, as she had not attained the age of majority.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the Petitioner relies on section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 which prescribes that every person born in India on or after 26. 1. 1950 but before 1. 7. 1987 shall be a citizen of India by birth. By virtue of Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 the petitioner would become a citizen of India by birth, since her date of birth is 4. 2. 1984.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the Respondents, however, rely on Article 5 of the Constitution which enunciates that at the time of its commencement every person who is domiciled in the territory of India and who was born in the territory of India shall be a citizen of India. If there is any divergence between the provisions of the constitution and any statute such as the Citizenship Act, the consequence would be that the statute may have to be struck down as ultra vires. However, every Court is enjoined to prefer an interpretation of a statute which would preserve its constitutionality. The short question which has to be answered therefore is whether the word `domicile occurring in Article 5 should be given a meaning contrary to the intendment behind Section 3 of the Citizenship Act.

( 6 ) IN Black s Law Dictionary domicile has been defined as that place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. A foreign domicile is a domicile established by a citizen or subject of one sovereignty within the territory of another. The Dictionary of modern Legal Usage, Bryan A. Garner states that domicile connotes residency at a particular place accompanied with positive or presumptive proof of an intention to remain there for an unlimited time. The meaning attributed to `domicile , `nationality and `citizenship in State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811 is also instructive. Accordingly, citizenship and domicile are distinct legal concepts and it is possible for a citizen of Country A to be domiciled in Country I. It has been erroneously contended on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner s parents have become naturalised Indian citizen only in 1991 and therefore they could not be considered to have been domiciled in the territory of india before that event. This is legally untenable since they could well have been domiciled in India even though they were not its citizens. It has further been argued that at the time when the parents had applied for naturalisation by following the procedures set down in section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the name of the petitioner could have been included so that her naturalisation could also have been ordered and/or a certificate of her citizenship under Section 5 could have been issued. This, however, begs the question. If the petitioner is already a citizen of India then recourse to the procedures set down in Section 5 would be wholly unnecessary. It is no doubt true that a child or minor has no independent domicile and must be deemed to enjoy the domicile of the parents. In the present case the parents have been domiciled in India since 1979. The decision of the Division Ben

Click Here to Read the rest of this document