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

1962 Supreme(All) 75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. S. Dhawan, J.
ABIDA KHATOON - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Second Appeal 1618 Of 1957
Decided On : 04/16/1962

Advocates Appeared:
GOPAL BEHARI, M.H.BEG, SWAMI DAYAL

A person does not lose Indian citizenship merely by migrating to Pakistan with the intention of residing there permanently. The person must also acquire a Pakistani domicile.

Headnote:

CITIZENSHIP - Loss of citizenship - Acquisition of citizenship of another country - Migration to Pakistan with intention of residing permanently - Acquisition of Pakistani passport - Explanation of plaintiffs that they signed blank forms without understanding their contents and acquired Pakistani passports with the sole motive of being able to return to India - State failed to prove that plaintiffs lost their Indian citizenship - Plaintiffs entitled to declaration that they are Indian citizens.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, Indian citizens, went to Pakistan in 1950 to visit a sick relative and returned in 1953 on Pakistani passports. The State alleged that they lost their Indian citizenship by acquiring Pakistani citizenship under Section 3(d) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951. The plaintiffs denied this and claimed that they never intended to settle in Pakistan and that they obtained Pakistani passports only to return to India.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the State failed to prove that the plaintiffs lost their Indian citizenship. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not leave India with the intention of settling in Pakistan permanently and that they did not acquire a Pakistani domicile. The Court also found that the plaintiffs' explanation that they signed blank forms without understanding their contents and acquired Pakistani passports with the sole motive of being able to return to India was credible.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs lost their Indian citizenship by acquiring Pakistani citizenship under Section 3(d) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951? 2. Whether the plaintiffs' explanation that they signed blank forms without understanding their contents and acquired Pakistani passports with the sole motive of being able to return to India was credible?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. To lose Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, a person must voluntarily acquire the citizenship of another country. 2. Migration to Pakistan with the intention of residing permanently does not automatically result in the acquisition of Pakistani citizenship. A person must also acquire a Pakistani domicile. 3. The acquisition of a Pakistani passport is prima facie evidence of the acquisition of Pakistani citizenship, but this presumption is rebuttable. 4. The plaintiffs' explanation that they signed blank forms without understanding their contents and acquired Pakistani passports with the sole motive of being able to return to India was credible.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court, and granted the plaintiffs a declaration that they are Indian citizens with all the rights to which they are entitled by virtue of their Citizenship.

DHAWAN, J.


( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by Smt. Abida Khatoon and her husband Abdul Shakoor against the decision of the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Agra dismissing their suit for a declaration that they are Indian citizens not liable to be deported to Pakistan. In their plaint the appellants made the following allegations: They were born and brought up at Agra and their parents too were born there. They were citizens of India at the commencement of the Constitution and have continued to enjoy this status ever since. In February, 1950, both of them went on a visit to Pakistan but without any intention to migrate or settle there permanently. After staying in Pakistan for some time they were anxious to return to India and applied to the Refugee department of the Pakistan government for repatriation to India under the Delhi agreement of 1950 (the so called nehru-Liaqat Pact ). Under that agreement the Governments of India and Pakistan had agreed to the return of the nationals who had fled to one country but desired to return home. The Muslims of Uttar Pradesh who went to West Pakistan between February and May 1950 were eligible for repatriation under this agreement, but the plaintiffs were unable to get a permanent permit enabling them to return. They could not secure accommodation in the special trains which were being run to transport refugees back to India, nor a permit for permanent return. But they did not give up their Indian nationality nor acquire any foreign nationality voluntarily. After this they signed some papers or forms in Pakistan but, being illiterate, did not know the nature of the documents they were signing. The plaint did not give the exact date when the appellants returned to India, but it was stated that on their return the appellants applied for permission to re-settle in india permanently, but their request was not granted. The State and its officials were threatening to deport the plaintiffs and on 1-3-51 the final orders of the State requiring them to leave India were communicated to them. The appellants moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief but they were asked to obtain a declaration from the Civil Court; hence this suit. The appellants contended that their threatened deportation was illegal and infringed their constitutional rights as citizens. Since january, 1954, they had been living in this country and their visa was being continuously extended by the State Government; but in view of the imminent threat of deportation, the plaintiffs asked for a declaration that they are Indian citizens not liable to be deported to pakistan.

( 2 ) THE suit was resisted both by the Union of India and the State of U. P. but a common written statement was filed. This is a very unsatisfactory document containing evasive replies, vexatious and frivolous denials, and vague allegations. Apart from a bare assertion that the plaintiffs are nationals of Pakistan, the case of the state was not clearly stated. The question in issue was whether the plaintiffs ever lost their citizenship of India, but apart from an allegation in paragraph 17 of the additional pleas that the plaintiffs came to Agra on 17th January, 1953, as nationals of Pakistan on a temporary Pakistan Passport there are no particulars of how and when the plaintiffs ceased to be citizens of India.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff Abida Khatoon deposed before the trial Court that she was born in Agra and that she and her husband did not go to Pakistan with any intention of settling there permanently. She explained that she went to Pakistan on receiving information that her brother who lived in karachi was seriously ill. She was accompanied by her husband and children but left all her belongings in India. On reaching Pakistan she found her brother suffering from a serious illness of which he died ten months later. After his death there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to remain in Pakistan and she made attempts to return. Ultimately a friend whom

















































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