1993 Supreme(Guj) 64

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :C.K.THAKKER
SEJAL VIKRAMBHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A.6659 of 1992
Decided On : 02/17/1993

Headnote:Citizenship Act, 1955 - Secs. 4, 8 & 9 - Concept of dual citizenship - Legislative mandate - Not in favour of dual citizenship - Specifically stated in object and reasons of Sec. 8 of the Act that certain provisions are designed to avoid dual citizenship to certain extent.

       ÿIt is also true that in a given situation, a person may be holding dual citizenship. It, however, cannot be forgotten that such concept is not encouraged by the legislature. Precisely for that purpose, in Statement of Objects and Reasons, it is observed that certain provisions were designed to avoid dual citizenship to certain extent. Again, it also becomes clear if one reads section 9 of the Act, which provides that if a citizen of India voluntarily acquires citizenship of any other country, he/she shall cease to be a citizen of India. The Constitution does not favour plural or dual citizenship and, therefore, appropriate provisions have been made either in the Constitution or in the Citizenship Act.

       [Para 16]

       Citizenship Act, 1955 - Secs. 4(1) & 9(2) - Rules for admission to the Ist MBBS/BDS/Psysiotherapy Courses at Government Medical College Rules - Rule 1.4 - Provision enabling to direct student seeking admission to produce proof of acquiring citizenship - Neither illegal nor invalid - Petitioner is born outside India and not holding valid Indian passport - Competent authority only competent to decide the question whether in facts and circumstances of the case petitioner has voluntarily acquired citizenship of any other country under Sec. 9 of the Act r/w rules framed thereunder - Court having granted provisional admission to petitioner issued necessary direction required in the matter.

       Court is of the opinion that it is in the interest of justice to direct the Central Government to decide the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has voluntarily acquired citizenship of any other country under section 9 of the Act read with the Rules framed thereunder. The Central Government will give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and decide the question in accordance with law. The respondent authorities are directed to grant provisional admission to the petitioner subject to the final out-come of the decision by the Central Government under section 9(2) of the Act. Since the question concerns academic career of a student in a medical course and the application form is submitted before more than seven months, it is expected that the Central Government will decide the question as expeditiously as possible.

       [Para 24]

       Citizenship Act, 1955 - Sec. 9 - Citizenship Rules, 1956 - Rule 30 - Bar of Civil Court jurisdiction - Extend to - Only question civil court is prevented from determination is whether a citizen of India has acquired citizenship of another country or when or how he acquired it - Such question are exclusively for the determination of Central Government - Bar on jurisdiction of civil Court has no application to determination of any other question concerning nationality which includes the question whether a person is or is not a citizen of India.

       Sub-sec. (2) of S. 9 of the Citizenship Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the question there mentioned because it says that those questions shall be determined by the prescribed authority which necessarily implies that it cannot be decided by anyone else. The only question, however, which civil court is prevented by S.9(2) of the Citizenship Act from determining is the question whether a citizen of India has acquired citizenship of another country or when or how he acquired it. The civil courts are not prevented by this provisions from determining other questions concerning nationality of a person.

       [Para 11]

       The cases that would ordinarily arise about loss of Indian citizenship by acquisition of foreign citizenship would be of three kinds; "(1) Indian citizens who voluntarily acquired citizenship of a foreign state prior to the commencement of the Constitution; (2) Indian citizens who voluntarily acquired citizenship of another State or country between January 26, 1950 and December 30, 1955, i.e. the date of commencement of the Act, and (3) Indian citizens who voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship after the date of commencement of the Act i.e. December 30, 1955. As regards the first category they were dealt with by Article 9 of the Constitution. The second and the third categories would be covered by the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. If a question arises as to whether, when or how an Indian citizen has acquired the citizenship of other country that has to be determined by the Central Government by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 9 read with Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules.

       [Para 19]

       There is, therefore, no doubt in my mind that whether a person is or is not a citizen of India, can be decided by a court. In fact, it is the duty of the court to decide that question. But, when a question arises as to whether, when or how a person has acquired citizenship of some other country, neither a court nor any other authority can decide that question since it is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government under Section 9(2) of the Act.

       [Para 20]