2018 (10) TMI 1328 - HC - Indian Laws

Application for review of Order - denial of petitioner s request to be granted citizenship by naturalization in terms of Section 6(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 - extension of permission of stay also sought - denial of citizenship was mainly on the ground that petitioner was suspected to be indulging in drug trade. Held that - For an alien to be granted citizenship by naturalisation, it would be necessary for the said person to qualify the conditions as set out in the Third Schedule of the Citizenship Act. One of the conditions specified therein is that the applicant be of good character (Clause (e) of the Third Schedule of the Citizenship Act) - It is also important to understand that as an alien, the petitioner is not entitled to the fundamental rights other than Article 21 and to a limited extent Article 14 of the Constitution of India guaranteed to a citizen of India. Indisputably, the petitioner does not have any inherent right to reside in India or to be accepted as the citizen of this Country. Accepting an application for naturalisation by the Central Government is a grant of privilege in exercise of its sovereign power. There is no definition of the expression good character in the Citizenship Act. Undoubtedly, the Central Government has wide discretion in setting the standards for its satisfaction as to the good character requirement. However, the expression must be understood in the context of the statute. The standards to qualify the good character requirement must be reasonable and as expected of a good and responsible citizen espousing the values engrafted in the Constitution of this country. The impugned order does indicate sufficient reason why the petitioner s application for naturalisation has been rejected. It is clear that the Central Government is not satisfied that the petitioner qualifies the good character requirement - this is a subjective decision and the Central Government (and not this Court) is required to be satisfied that the petitioner is qualified for naturalisation under the provisions of the Third Schedule of the Citizenship Act. This decision cannot be subjected to judicial review except on limited grounds. The said decision cannot be held to be arbitrary, capricious or whimsical and, thus, cannot be interfered with in these proceedings. Whether the petitioner would be rendered stateless as citizenship was not granted to her? - Held that - Admittedly, the petitioner is a German National. Her parents are also German Citizens. The petitioner was born in Germany and had, admittedly, come to India in connection with a business relating to Indian handicrafts. She may have spent a considerable time in India, but a refusal to grant her citizenship by naturalisation does not render her Stateless as contended on her behalf. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of citizenship by naturalization under Section 6(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
2. Allegation of involvement in drug trafficking under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
3. Evaluation of the "good character" requirement for naturalization.
4. Judicial review of the Central Government's discretionary decision.
5. Claim of potential statelessness of the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Citizenship by Naturalization:
The petitioner, a German national, challenged the order dated 30.07.2018, which rejected her application for review of a previous order dated 28.09.2017. The petitioner sought citizenship by naturalization under Section 6(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Central Government denied her request, primarily based on allegations of her involvement in drug trafficking.

2. Allegation of Involvement in Drug Trafficking:
The petitioner was accused of trafficking drugs when 8.4 kgs of Hashish was found in her suitcase at Mumbai Airport in 2007. Although she was acquitted by the Special Judge (NDPS) due to discrepancies in the samples and lack of conclusive evidence, the Central Government considered the serious nature of the allegations. The acquittal was based on the failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, not on the absence of suspicion.

3. Evaluation of the "Good Character" Requirement:
Section 6(1) of the Citizenship Act requires applicants for naturalization to be of "good character" as per the Third Schedule. The Central Government has wide discretion in determining this requirement. The petitioner's involvement in a serious drug-related allegation, despite her acquittal, was deemed sufficient to question her good character. The Court noted that the petitioner did not have an inherent right to citizenship and that the grant of citizenship is a privilege exercised by the sovereign power of the Central Government.

4. Judicial Review of the Central Government's Discretionary Decision:
The Court emphasized that the decision to grant citizenship is at the discretion of the Central Government and is subjective. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to checking if the decision is capricious, malafide, or whimsical. The impugned order provided sufficient reasons for rejecting the petitioner's application, indicating that the Central Government was not satisfied with the petitioner's qualification under the good character requirement.

5. Claim of Potential Statelessness:
The petitioner argued that denying her citizenship would render her stateless. However, the Court found this contention unmerited, as the petitioner is a German national with parents who are German citizens. The refusal to grant her Indian citizenship does not make her stateless.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the Central Government's decision to deny the petitioner's application for naturalization was neither arbitrary nor whimsical. The petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of. The Court upheld the Central Government's discretion in matters of citizenship and emphasized the importance of the good character requirement in the naturalization process.