SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Mad) 745

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AR. LAKSHMANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL
Daivid John Hopkins - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India and Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 65 of 1996, and Cmp No. 869 of 1996 and W.P.No. 1 257 of 1996 and Wmp No. 1973 of 1996
Decided On : 28 July 1997

Appearing Advocates: Dr. K. P. Krishan Shetty, V. T. Gopalan, Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel, Assisted By R. Santhanam, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel.

Foreign nationals do not have a fundamental right to citizenship and the Government has the power to refuse citizenship without assigning any reason.

Headnote:

CITIZENSHIP - SECTION 14(1) OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1956 - ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - FOREIGN NATIONAL - RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP - POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO REFUSE CITIZENSHIP - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a citizen of the United Kingdom, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 14(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1956, which empowers the Government to refuse citizenship without assigning any reason. The appellant argued that the provision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The Government contended that the appellant, being a foreign national, has no fundamental right to citizenship and that the impugned provision is necessary to protect the security and interests of the country.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Section 14(1) of the Citizenship Act is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that foreign nationals do not have a fundamental right to citizenship and that the Government has the power to refuse citizenship without assigning any reason. The Court further held that the impugned provision is necessary to protect the security and interests of the country.

Issues: 1. Whether Section 14(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1956, is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether a foreign national has a fundamental right to citizenship? 3. Whether the Government has the power to refuse citizenship without assigning any reason?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 14(1) of the Citizenship Act is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court observed that foreign nationals do not have a fundamental right to citizenship and that the Government has the power to refuse citizenship without assigning any reason. The Court further held that the impugned provision is necessary to protect the security and interests of the country. 2. The Court held that foreign nationals do not have a fundamental right to citizenship. 3. The Court held that the Government has the power to refuse citizenship without assigning any reason.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition.

Judgment :-

AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.

The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of S. Jagadeesen, J., dated 31-8-1995 in W.P.No. 11063 of 1995 (reported in 1996 AIR(Madras) 314).

2. W.P.No. 11063 of 1995 was filed by the appellant, who is a citizen of United Kingdom, for a declaration that Section 14(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1956 (Act 57 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which embodies the rule of law, and void.

3. The case of the appellant, as put forth in the writ affidavit is, in short, as follows :- The appellant came to India in 1970, mainly with the idea of making India his permanent home and spend his time in Ashrams for meditation and learning Indian philosophy. Initially, he stayed at Swami Vivekananda Sevashrams and Swami Vivekananda Home of Renunciation and Service, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh. According to the appellant, he lived in the Ashram as Sanyasi for nearly 14 years, i.e., between 1970 and 1985 studying Mahabharat, Ramayan and like scriptures, reading the works of modern saints like Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo, receiving spiritual instructions from his Guru and rendering service to the lepers. The appellant originally gave up his English name and took an Indian name on 11-6-1985. He assumed the Hindu name Swami Shivapranananda. Subsequently, he gave up the assumed name on 22-3-1988 and reverted back to his original name.

4. The appellant applies for Indian citizenship on 1-2-1985 under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, which reads thus :

"Subject to the provisions of this section and such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the prescribed authority may, on application made in his behalf, register as a citizen of India any person who is not already such citizen by virtue of the Constitution or by virtue of any of the other provisions of this Act and belongs to any of the following categories:

(a), (b), (c) and (d) x x x x

e) person of full age and capacity who are citizens of a country specified in the First Schedule.

Provided that in prescribing the conditions and restrictions subject to which persons of any such country may be registered as citizens of India under this Clause, the Central Government shall have due regard to the conditions subject to which citizens of India may, by law or practice of that country become citizens of that country by registration." *

5. In his application, the appellant has stated several reasons for his strong desire to make India as his permanent home and to acquire Indian citizenship. Subsequently, he wrote a letter dated 25-3-1985 to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi, regarding the submission of advance copies of his application for registration as an Indian citizen under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act. The appellant received a letter dated 6-4-1985 from the 2nd respondent, which stated as follows :

"No. 26017/4/85/IC

Government of India/Bharat Sarkar

Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya

New Delhi, the 6th April, 1985.

To

Shri David John Hopkins

(known as Swami Shivaparananda),

Dr. Ram Swaroop Colony,

Moradabad-18,

Uttar Pradesh.

Sub :- Registration as Indian citizen under Section 5(1)(e) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

----

Sir,

With reference to your letter dated the 25th March, 1985, on the subject mentioned above, I am directed to say that rules have not so far been framed for registration of British Citizens as Indian Citizens under Section 5(1)(e) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. As such, your application for such registration does not lie and cannot be considered.

Yours faithfully,

(Sd.) P. Vijayaraghavan,

Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India

6. The appellant made his repeated attempts to get the Indian citizenship but the concerned authorities refused to give effect to the existing law of registration. Therefore, the appellant filed W.P.No. 11063 of 1995 for a declaration that Section 14(1) of the Act ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. The writ petition was dis































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top