JUDGEMENT
M.C.Desai, J. -
(1.) This and the companion applications are directed against orders passed by a Magistrate before
whom the applicants are being fried under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act for infringement of
Rule 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, refusing to stay proceedings in the cases. All the
applicants were citizens of India under Article 5 of the Constitution on 26-1-1950, went to
Pakistan in April, 1950 and returned to India in 1955 or 1956 after obtaining passports from the
Pakistan Government as citizens of Pakistan. The passports were endorsed with visas by the
Indian Diplomatic Authority in Karachi limiting the period of their stay in India.
They failed to depart from India before the expiry of the periods mentioned in their visas and are
now being prosecuted for their failure under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. Applications were
made on their behalf for stay of the proceedings in the cases on the grounds that they could not
he held to be foreigners unless they were held to have acquired the citizenship of Pakistan and
thereby lost the citizenship of India, that the question whether they had acquired the citizenship
of Pakistan or not was to be decided by the Central Government under Section 9 (2) of the
Citizenship Act, 1955 and that they were referring the question to the Central Government for its
decision.
The trial court dismissed the applications observing that there was no provision under which it
was bound to stay the proceedings in order to enable the applicants to obtain a decision from the
Central Government on the question whether they had acquired the citizenship of Pakistan or
not. It also observed that the applications were not bona fide and that the applicants had ample
time to move the Central Government for its decision if they were so minded.
(2.) It may be assumed that the applicants became citizens of India on 26-1-1950 and continued to
be so under Article 10 subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by the Parliament.
The Citizenship Act was enacted by Parliament to provide for acquisition and termination of
citizenship. In these cases, I am concerned with termination of citizenship. Section 9(1) lays
down that any citizen of India who voluntary acquires, after 26-1-1950, the citizenship of
another country shall, upon the acquisition or upon the commencement of the Act, cease to be a
citizen of India.
In sub-sec. (2) of the section it is laid down that if any question as to whether, when or how any
person has acquired the citizenship of another country arisen, it shall be determined by such
authority in such manner, and having regard to such rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in
his behalf. In Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956 made by the Central Government in
exercise of the power conferred by Section 18 of the Act, it is laid down that if a question
referred to in Section 9(2) of the Act arises, the authority to determine it shall, "for the purposes
of Section 9 (2)" be the Central Government and that it shall determine it with due regard to the
rules of evidence specified in Schedule III."
Rule 3 of Schedule III is to the effect that the acquisition by a citizen of India of a passport from
the Government of any other country, shall be conclusive proof of his having voluntarily
acquired the citizenship of that country before the date of the acquisition.
(3.) If the applicants, when they came to India from Pakistan, were citizens of India, they were not
governed by the Foreigners Act. The case for the prosecution was that by obtaining passports
from the Pakistan Government is citizens of Pakistan, they acquired the citizenship of Pakistan
and thereby lost the citizenship of India. The contentions of the applicants are that this question
whether they have acquired the citizenship of Pakistan could be determined only by the Central
Government and that the trial Court should stay the proceedings so long as it is not so
determined.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.