9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1904 - HC - Indian LawsCancellation of the registration as an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder - Section 7D of The Citizenship Act, 1955 - HELD THAT - There is no need of any prior intimation in case of blacklisting by Union of India, which is done for protecting the integrity and sovereignty and safety of India. Similarly, there is no need of prior intimation when the Union of India passes any order under Section 7D of The Citizenship Act, 1955, especially for the reasons mentioned in Section 7D of The Citizenship Act, 1955, more particularly for protecting the integrity and sovereignty of India. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 7D of The Citizenship Act, 1955 regarding cancellation of registration as Overseas Citizen of India cardholder. 2. Requirement of prior intimation for blacklisting and cancellation of registration. 3. Authority of Union of India to protect sovereignty and integrity. 4. Observations made by the Single Judge in the interim order. Analysis of Judgment: Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 7D of The Citizenship Act, 1955 The appeal involved a challenge to the observations made by the Single Judge regarding the cancellation of registration as an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder under Section 7D of The Citizenship Act, 1955. The appellant argued that no order was passed under Section 7D and therefore, the observations made by the Single Judge were not warranted. The appellant contended that orders under Section 7D are made in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, and there is no statutory requirement for prior intimation in such cases. Issue 2: Requirement of Prior Intimation The appellant, representing the Union of India, argued that there is no provision for prior intimation of blacklisting or cancellation of registration as an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder in the relevant laws, including The Foreigners Act, 1946, and The Citizenship Act, 1955. It was emphasized that decisions made for protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India do not require prior intimation to the concerned individuals. The appellant contended that the observations made by the Single Judge regarding the need for prior intimation were unwarranted. Issue 3: Authority of Union of India The judgment highlighted the authority of the Union of India to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country. It was emphasized that actions taken by the Union of India in the interest of national security and public safety do not necessitate prior intimation to the affected parties. The appellant argued that decisions made by the Union of India for such purposes are not required to be communicated in advance. Issue 4: Observations by Single Judge The judgment modified the observations made by the Single Judge in the interim order dated 21st August, 2018, in W.P.(C) 8455/2018. It clarified that there is no need for prior intimation in case of blacklisting by the Union of India or when passing orders under Section 7D of The Citizenship Act, 1955. The modification emphasized that such actions are taken to protect the integrity and sovereignty of India, and therefore, prior intimation is not necessary. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment modified the observations made by the Single Judge regarding the requirement of prior intimation in cases of blacklisting and cancellation of registration as an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder, emphasizing the authority of the Union of India to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country without the need for prior intimation.
|
