9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 2. Constitutional validity of Rule 3 in Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956. 3. Determination of citizenship status under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutional Validity of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955: The petitioners challenged the validity of Section 9(2) on the grounds that it affects their status of citizenship and their fundamental rights under Article 19. The court observed that the scheme of the relevant Articles of Part II of the Constitution suggests that the status of citizenship can be adversely affected by a statute made by Parliament. Article 19 assumes that the person claiming the rights guaranteed by it is a citizen of India. If the basic status of citizenship is validly terminated by a Parliamentary statute, the person whose citizenship is terminated has no right to claim the fundamental rights under Article 19. Therefore, the challenge to Section 9(2) on the ground that it enables the rule-making authority to make a rule to deprive the citizenship rights of the petitioners cannot be sustained. 2. Constitutional Validity of Rule 3 in Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956: The principal ground on which the validity of Rule 3 was challenged is that Section 9(2) authorizes the Central Government to prescribe rules of evidence, but Rule 3 is in substance a rule of substantive law. The court noted the distinction between substantive law and procedural law, stating that substantive law defines rights, duties, and liabilities, while procedural law deals with the application of substantive law to particular cases. The law of evidence, being a part of procedural law, deals with what facts may be proved and how. The court concluded that if fact A (obtaining a passport from a foreign government) is inherently relevant in proving fact B (voluntary acquisition of citizenship of that foreign state), then a rule prescribing either a rebuttable or irrebuttable presumption in that behalf would be a rule of evidence. The court held that Rule 3 is a rule of evidence and falls within the scope prescribed by Section 9(2). 3. Determination of Citizenship Status under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution: The petitioners resisted their deportation from India on the grounds that Section 9(2) of the Act is ultra vires and that Rule 3 in Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, is constitutionally invalid. The court noted that the relevant Articles of the Constitution (Articles 5 to 11) deal with citizenship and that Article 11 confers the power on Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship. The court observed that the voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship terminates Indian citizenship under Section 9(1) of the Act. The court also noted the legislative history of the content of the words "rules of evidence" in India and concluded that the expression "rules of evidence" would include a rule as to conclusive presumption like the one in Rule 3. Therefore, the court upheld the validity of Section 9(2) and Rule 3. Conclusion: The petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and Rule 3 in Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956. The court concluded that the impugned rule is a rule of evidence and falls within the scope prescribed by Section 9(2). The challenge to Section 9(2) on the ground that it enables the rule-making authority to make a rule to deprive the citizenship rights of the petitioners was not sustained. The court directed the Central Government to determine the question of whether the petitioners voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan in accordance with law, leaving out of account Rule 3 of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956.
|
