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

BHOPAL HIGH COURT
SATHAYE, J.
B. Choudhary – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bhopal and Another – Respondents
Misc. Criminal Case No. 119 of 1950-51
Decided On : 21-12-1950

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ram Panjwani.
For the Respondent: Ramchand Rupchand.

Fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution are available only to citizens of India.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CITIZENSHIP - ART. 5 AND 6 - DOMICILE AND ORDINARY RESIDENCE - PROOF - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - ART. 19(1)(D) AND (E) - AVAILABILITY ONLY TO CITIZENS - PETITIONER NOT PROVED TO BE A CITIZEN - PETITION REJECTED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, arrested and detained under the Preventive Detention Act, was released after the expiry of his term but was externed from the whole of Bhopal State under the Bhopal State Public Safety Act. He challenged the order of externment as encroaching on his fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was not a citizen of India and therefore could not claim the fundamental rights available only to citizens under Art. 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is a citizen of India. 2. Whether the Bhopal State Public Safety Act and the Bhopal Administration Order are void under Arts. 19 and 13 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. To determine citizenship under Art. 5 of the Constitution, the petitioner must have his domicile in the territory of India and satisfy one of the factors laid down under cls. (a), (b), or (c). 2. The petitioner failed to prove that he had his domicile in the territory of India or that he satisfied any of the factors under Art. 5. 3. The petitioner also failed to prove that he was a person who had migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan and satisfied the requisite under cl. (a) of Art. 6 of the Constitution. 4. Therefore, the petitioner was not a citizen of India and could not claim the fundamental rights available only to citizens under Art. 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The petition was rejected.

ORDER :

1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for issue of a direction or order or a writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition or for grant of any other relief, to safeguard his fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner was arrested at Bhopal, on 6-4-1950 and detained under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 for three months by the order of the Chief Commissioner and the detention was extended for another three months. But on 6-10-1950, when his application under Art. 226 of the Constitution was pending in the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Bhopal, he was released, his term having expired, but was externed from the whole of Bhopal State, an order under S. 4(1)(d), Bhopal State Public Safety Act of 1947 read with S. 5, Bhopal Administration Order, 1945 passed by the Chief Commissioner, Bhopal. It is this order that is now challenged as encroaching on the petitioner's fundamental rights under Art. 19 (1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution. The petitioner urges that the Bhopal State Public Safety Act as also the Bhopal Administration Order, 1945 are void under Arts. 19 and 13 of the Constitution.

3. Three affidavits are filed by the petitioner dated 21-10-1945, 12-11-1945 and 18-11-1950 while the State of Bhopal filed two affidavits sworn by the Home Secretary, Bhopal, dated 20-11-1950 and 2-12-1950. The petitioner claims to be a citizen of India while the State Govt. denies this fact and stated that the petitioner belonged to District Mymensingh (East Bengal) and shifted to Calcutta during the period of war and then came to Bhopal in January 1949 but has not settled at this place.

4. The petitioner contends :- (1) That S. 4, Bhopal State Public Safety Act of 1947, contravenes Arts. 19 and 22 of the Constitution and is void; (2) that the whole of the Bhopal State Public Safety Act of 1947 and S. 5 of the Bhopal Administration Order 1945 are void under Art. 13 of the Constitution; (3) that the order dated 6-10-45 is defective, mala fide and illegal.

5. The first and the most important point for determination, therefore, is whether the petitioner is a citizen of India. Part II of the Constitution lays down the Articles to determine citizenship of a person. The question is whether Art. 5 of the Constitution is applicable to the petitioner. Two essentials are necessary under this article viz.: (1) that the petitioner must have his domicile in the territory of India and (2) one of the factors as laid down under cls. (a) or (b) or (c). The petitioner claims that he has his domicile in the territory of India and that he has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement i.e., the commencement of the Constitution.

6. It is, therefore, necessary to find whether the petitioner has his domicile in the territory of India. In the affidavit dated 21-10-50 he merely states that he is a peaceful and respectable citizen of India but in the affidavit dated 12-11-50 he states that he is a displaced person from East Bengal, that he came to Bhopal since January 1949, that he has got no intention to go anywhere else and further that he is enrolled as a voter in the electoral list of Jahangirabad, Bhopal and has his hearth and home in Bhopal. In the affidavit dated 20-11-50 of the Home Secretary, Bhopal the antecedents of the petitioner are stated. It is said that he is not a displaced person from East Bengal that he originally belonged to District Mymensingh (East Bengal) where he was convicted for some offence and then shifted to Calcutta during the last great war, that he came down to Bhopal only in January 1949, and that he had not settled in Bhopal. In the affidavit dated 2-12-50 it is deined that the petitioner has his hearth and home in Bhopal, and stated that no other member of his family had been seen at any time living with the applicant at Bhopal; that the assertion of the applicant that he has been enrolled as






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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top