9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Validity of the order under s. 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 - Applicability of s. 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 - Definition of "foreigner" under the Foreigners Act, 1946 - Interpretation of Section 8(1) of the Foreigners Act - Relevance of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act - Burden of proof in determining foreigner status - Appropriate forum for deciding nationality question Validity of the order under s. 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946: The case involved an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court judgment quashing an order made under s. 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The High Court held that there was no prima facie material to support the order, leading to its quashing. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under s. 3(2) allows the government to direct a foreigner to leave India, and if the individual is indeed a foreigner, the order cannot be challenged. Applicability of s. 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955: The Union contended that s. 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, was not relevant to the case, as it deals with the termination of citizenship under specific circumstances. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the issue at hand was not related to the termination of citizenship, rendering the High Court's reference to s. 9 inappropriate. Definition of "foreigner" under the Foreigners Act, 1946: The Foreigners Act, 1946, defines a "foreigner" as a person who is not a citizen of India. The order in question was issued under the provision granting the government the power to direct foreigners to leave India. Interpretation of Section 8(1) of the Foreigners Act: Section 8(1) deals with cases where a foreigner is recognized as a national by multiple countries or when their nationality is uncertain. The Supreme Court clarified that this section was not applicable to the case at hand, as it does not address the determination of whether an individual is a foreigner or an Indian citizen. Relevance of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act: Section 9 places the burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner on the individual, irrespective of the Indian Evidence Act. The Supreme Court highlighted that this section applied to the case, emphasizing that the burden of proof was on the respondent. Burden of proof in determining foreigner status: The High Court erred in overlooking the provisions of Section 9 and misdirecting itself regarding the burden of proof. The Court clarified that the respondent had the onus of proving he was not a foreigner, and the High Court's approach was incorrect. Appropriate forum for deciding nationality question: The Supreme Court concluded that the question of whether the respondent was a foreigner was a factual matter requiring detailed examination of evidence, unsuitable for resolution under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The Court suggested that the issue be resolved through a suit, leaving both parties free to pursue this course of action. In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, allowing the respondent the opportunity to file a suit or pursue other legal proceedings to determine his foreigner status. The Union agreed not to enforce the deportation order immediately, granting the respondent time to take appropriate legal action.
|
