Judges : K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Abubacker - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 4690/93 etc.
Decided On : 12/01/1999
Advocates Appeared :
S. Abdul Salam For Petitioners S.C.G.S.C. (K. Ramakumar) & Government Pleader (Noble Mathew) For Respondents
Citizenship - Determination of Indian Citizenship - Citizenship Act, 1955 - S.9(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, particularly S.9(2), which provides for the determination of Indian citizenship in case a person voluntarily acquires citizenship of another country. The court highlighted the rules of evidence prescribed under the Act and emphasized the quasi-judicial approach required for determining the acquisition of foreign citizenship. The court also referred to Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, which raises rebuttable and conclusive presumptions regarding the acquisition of foreign citizenship.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, of Indian origin, left India for employment in countries like Pakistan, Britain, and Malaysia. They claimed to be Indian citizens and left India on compelling circumstances, acquiring foreign passports. The Government of India rejected their contentions and held that they are not Indian citizens. The petitioners challenged these orders on various grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the orders of the Central Government issued under S.9(2) of the Citizenship Act, stating that the authority to decide the question of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship lies with the Central Government. The court emphasized that the determination by the Central Government must be given effect unless there is evidence of mala fide or violation of principles of natural justice. The court directed the State Government to forward the details of the petitioners to the Central Government for consideration of long-term stay facilities and citizenship by registration.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, challenges to the orders of the Central Government, and the applications for long-term stay facilities and citizenship by registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the quasi-judicial approach required for determining the acquisition of foreign citizenship under S.9(2) of the Citizenship Act. It highlighted the importance of following international law in domestic laws and considered the social impact and human rights implications of arresting and deporting elderly persons of Indian origin.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the State Government to forward the details of the petitioners to the Central Government for consideration of long-term stay facilities and citizenship by registration. The court directed the Central Government to consider the applications and ordered that the petitioners shall not be arrested and deported from India unless warranted by the violation of any other laws of the country.
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
Petitioners in all these cases are of Indian origin, except the petitioner in O.P. No. 5441 of 1995, who was born in Mahe in 1935, which was part of Pondicherry, a French settlement. Petitioners left India for employment to countries like Pakistan, Britain, Malaysia, some of which are still Commonwealth countries. Petitioners went for employment to Pakistan, except the petitioner in Q.P. No. 53 of 1998 who left for United Kingdom and is holding a British passport. Petitioner in O.P. No. 1717 of 1999 is holding a Malaysian passport. Petitioners are now in India taking up the stand that they are Indian citizens and left India on compelling circumstances, and had to acquire foreign passport. Since their status as Indian citizen was disputed and authorities took steps to arrest and deport them, they preferred applications before the Central Government for determination of their status under S.9(2) of the Citizenship Act, which says that 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 that behalf. Contentions were raised before the Government of India, stating that some of the petitioners left India to secure employment abroad leaving their parents, wife and children in India. Petitioners claimed that they were victims of the vagaries of Travel Agents and had to leave the country without proper Travel documents, and without holding any Indian passport. Passports of other countries were obtained for better job opportunities and not voluntarily. According to them, passports of other countries were obtained so as to facilitate them to return to India. Those contentions were considered by the Government of India. Petitioners were given an opportunity of being heard. Government of India rejected those contentions and held that petitioners are not Indian citizens.
2. Petitioners have challenged those orders on various grounds. According to the petitioners, they have no intention whatsoever to renounce the Indian Citizenship, and to acquire passports of Pakistan, Britain or Malaysia. According to them, the mere fact that they have obtained Pakistani, British or Malaysian passport, would not necessarily mean that they have voluntarily acquired those passports. Reliance was placed by petitioners on the decision of the Supreme Court in MD. Ayub Khan v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1965 SC1623. The Supreme Court held that if a plea is raised by a citizen that he had not voluntarily obtained the passport, the citizen must be afforded an opportunity to prove that fact. Cases may be visualised in which on account of fraud a person may be compelled or on account of fraud or misrepresentation he may be induced without any intention of renunciation of his Indian citizenship to obtain a passport from a foreign country. Petitioners submit the same would not give rise to a conclusive presumption that they had voluntarily obtained the citizenship of other country.
3. The Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted by the Parliament to provide for the acquisition and determination of Indian citizenship. Provisions of Constitution of India, particularly Arts.5 to 9, determine as to who are citizens of India at the commencement thereof. Art.10 of the Constitution of India provides for continuance of such citizenship subject to provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament.
Art.11 of the Constitution of India leaves it to the law-makers to deal with the cases of acquisition of citizenship after the commencement of the Constitution, which led to the enactment of the Citizenship Act, 1955. S.9 of the Citizenship Act provides for determination of Indian Citizenship in case a person voluntarily acquires citizenship of another country. Art.9 of the Constitution of India deals with a person voluntarily acquiring citizenship of any foreign State. S.9(
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.