1965 (2) TMI 97 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
2. Validity of Clause 3 of Schedule III to the Citizenship Rules.
3. Requirement of quasi-judicial inquiry under Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules.
4. Voluntariness of obtaining a foreign passport and its impact on Indian citizenship.
5. Procedural fairness in the determination of citizenship status.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955:
The appellant challenged the constitutionality of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provides for the termination of Indian citizenship upon the voluntary acquisition of citizenship of another country. The court referenced its earlier decision in *Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India* [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 235, which upheld the legislative competence of Parliament to enact Section 9. The court reiterated that Section 9 was validly enacted and did not find grounds to re-examine this settled issue.

2. Validity of Clause 3 of Schedule III to the Citizenship Rules:
The appellant also contested the validity of Clause 3 of Schedule III, which states that obtaining a passport from another country is conclusive proof of voluntary acquisition of that country's citizenship. The court, referring to the same precedent, confirmed that Rule 3 of Schedule III was competently made by the Central Government under Section 18 of the Citizenship Act and upheld its validity.

3. Requirement of Quasi-Judicial Inquiry under Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules:
The appellant argued that Rule 30 necessitates a quasi-judicial inquiry, including the opportunity to present evidence and make representations. The court agreed, emphasizing that the determination of whether a person has voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship must follow a procedure akin to a quasi-judicial inquiry. The Central Government must give notice and a reasonable opportunity to the concerned individual to prove that the acquisition of the foreign passport was not voluntary.

4. Voluntariness of Obtaining a Foreign Passport and its Impact on Indian Citizenship:
The court examined whether obtaining a foreign passport automatically implies voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship. It held that obtaining a passport does not always mean voluntary acquisition, as there could be instances of compulsion, fraud, or misrepresentation. Therefore, if an individual claims that the passport was not obtained voluntarily, they must be given an opportunity to prove this claim.

5. Procedural Fairness in the Determination of Citizenship Status:
The court found that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to present his case before the Central Government, which was a violation of procedural fairness. The court stressed that the Central Government must determine the voluntariness of acquiring foreign citizenship in accordance with the prescribed rules of evidence and provide the individual with a chance to contest the allegations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the order of deportation by the Commissioner of Police, Madras, could not be enforced until the Central Government determined the appellant's citizenship status in accordance with the law, ensuring procedural fairness. The court did not award any costs.