SAMEER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of the provisions contained in S.9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Yakub Ibrahim, AIR 1974 SC 645 the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a question had arisen as to whether, when or how the petitioner had acquired the citizenship of Pakistan and this question could only be determined by competent authority prescribed under the said provision.

(2.) Article 5 of the Constitution provides that at the commencement of the Constitution every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and (a) who was born in the territory of India; or (b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or (c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement, be a citizen of India. Article 6 of the Constitution is an exception to Article 5 and it makes those persons also citizen of India who had migrated to the territory of India from the territory included in Pakistan if the conditions mentioned in two sub-clauses thereof are satisfied. Article 7 is another exception both to Articles 5 and 6 and it makes a person who had after the 1st day of March, 1947 migrated from the territory of India to the territory included in Pakistan not to be a citizen of India unless he obtains a permit of resettlement under proviso to Article 7.

(3.) For the applicability of S.9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 the foremost and basic condition is that the person concerned should be citizen of India and the question should arise whether by naturalisation, registration or otherwise, he had voluntarily acquired at any time between 26th January, 1950 and the commencement of the Citizenship Act. 1955, the citizenship of an other country. This basic condition was satisfied in the case before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Yakub Ibrahim (1974 Cri LJ 597) (supra). The reported facts of that decision would go to show that the accused had produced credible evidence to prove that he was born at Dhandhuka in the state of Gujarat on 14th May, 1936; that he was living in that village and attended school there until 1952 when he moved to Ahmedabad with his father and that he had gone to Pakistan in a state of anger while he was a minor after a quarrel with his father. These findings of fact were arrived at by the Courts. Clearly therefore, the basic conditions that the person concerned should be citizen of India as envisaged by S.8 of the Citizenship Act 1955 were satisfied.