The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Central Government is the authority to determine citizenship disputes, and a decision by the Central Government is a condition precedent for prosecuting a person under the Foreigners Act.

1. The petitioner was arrested on 2-10-74 while he was in the Chokli bazaar for violation of S.14 of the Foreigners Act read with R.3 of the Indian Passport Rules. In due course a charge-sheet was filed against him in the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate (Judicial), Tellicherry and the case was registered as C. C. 312 of 1975 The petitioner pleaded not guilty. While the above case was pending, apprehending that he would be deported from the country, the petitioner filed O. P. 6084 of 1975 before this court and obtained an interim injunction restraining the State from arresting, detaining or deporting the petitioner in pursuance of the steps taken against him in the Foreigners Act. The present petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C. C. 312 of 1975 and to direct the Additional First Class Magistrate (Judicial), Tellicherry to discharge the petitioner.

2. The case put forward by the petitioner is that he was residing in India on 26th January, 1950 when the Constitution of India came into force and that by virtue of Art.5 of the Constitution, he is a citizen of India. He was forced to accept a Pakistani passport under certain compelling circumstances and by a mistaken advice without fully knowing the ultimate consequences thereof. The acceptance of Pakistani passport being involuntary, did not deprive him of his Indian citizenship. A dispute regarding his citizenship arose due to the initiation of the proceedings under the Foreigners Act and a petition under S.9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, praying for an adjudication of the dispute had to be filed. That application is still pending consideration before the Central Government. No prosecution would lie against him until the Central Government decides the dispute.

3. The question to be decided is whether the petitioner who was originally a citizen of India lost bis citizenship and is a foreigner. There is no doubt that if the petitioner is a foreign national and is not in possession of a valid passport, proceedings can be initiated against him under S.14 of the Foreigners Act. But then there is the question who is to decide whether the petitioner is a foreign national. S.9 of the Citizenship Act deals with termination of citizenship. It reads:

"Termination of citizenship -(1) Any citizen of India who by naturalisation, registration or otherwise voluntarily acquires, or has at any time between the 26th January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act voluntarily acquired, the citizenship of another country shall, upon such acquisition or, as the case may be, such commencement, cease to be a citizen of India:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a citizen of India who, during any war in which India may be engaged, voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, until the Central Government otherwise directs.

(2) If any question arises as to whether, when or how any person has acquired the citizenship of another country it shall be determined by such authority, in such manner, and having regard to such rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf."

It is now settled that under the above provision read with R.30 of the Citizen ship Rules, the dispute is to be decide by the Central Government. The issue has been decided by the Supreme Court in several cases beginning from Izhar Ahmad Khan v Union of India (AIR. 1962 SC. 1052) In the case, Md. Ayub Khan v. Commissioner of Police (AIR 1965 SC. 1623), it is held that if a plea is raised by a citizen that he had not

voluntarily obtained the passport he must be afforded an opportunity to prove that fact. The decision proceeds:

"S. 9(2) read with R.30 confers the power to determine whether Indian citizenship is terminated upon the specified authority, and in exercising that power the authority is guided by the statutory rules of evidence. It would be impossible to hold that termination of Indian citizenship depends upon action of a foreign country in issuing the p