DAIVID JOHN HOPKINS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the citizen of United Kindom. He came to India in the year 1970. Between 1970 and 1985 he stayed at Swami Vivekananda Sevashram, Swami Vivekananda Home of Renunciation and Service and he was initiated into Sanhasin Disciple of the Ramakrishna Order. He decided to become the citizen of India. On 11-6-1985, he assumed the Hindu name Swami Shivapranananda. But, however, on 22-3-1988 he gave up the assumed Hindu name and reverted back to his original name. In the meanwhile, on 1-2-1985 he sent an application to the respondents to get Indian Citizenship. The petitioner was informed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 6-4-1985 that since Rules have not been framed for registration of the British Citizens as Indian Citizens, the petitioner's application for registration does not lie and cannot be considered. The petitioner did not take any steps to agitate the matter. By the end of April, 1985 the petitioner returned to England. Till October, 1992 he stayed there except for a short visit of two months during 1987. In 1992 he came to India and stayed for six months. Again in April, 1993 he went back to England. During January, 1994 once again he came to India and stayed for six months. In July, 1994 he returned to England and December, 1994 he visited India on tourist visa. In January, 1995 he returned to United Kingdom and in April, 1995 ones came to India.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Section 14(1) of the Citizenship Act and prays for declaration that the said Section 14(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has applied for the registration of the Indian Citizenship under Section 5(1)(C) of the Citizenship Act and repeatedly his request has been rejected for registration as Citizen of India, due to the non-framing of the Citizenship Rules in respect of British Citizens. The executive has failed to frame the Rules and it is not open to them to keep quiet without framing the necessary Rules for ever, whereby depriving the British Citizens like the petitioner to become the Indian Citizen. Further S. 14(1) of the Citizenship Act empower the prescribed authority or the Central Government either to grant or refuse an application for registration under Section 5 or 6 of the said Act without assigning any reason for such grant or refusal, when Article 14 of the Constitution of India enshrined the rule of law, the said Section 14 (I) of the Citizenship Act giving the concerned authority with arbitrary power as there is no guideline provided thereunder either to reject or to grant the registration. Further the power not to assign any reason is also bad.