Khan & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors  Insc 171
(2 April 2002)
Raju & Ashok Bhan
With C.A. No. 10224 of 1995
judgment shall dispose of Civil Appeal No. 10224 of 1995 directed against the
Division Bench Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court arising from Civil Writ
Petition No. 837 of 1987 decided on 17th May, 1994 and Writ Petition (C) No.
737 of 1995 filed in this Court challenging the order made by the Government of
India (Annexure D in the writ petition) dated 21st July, 1995 determining the
national status of the petitioners under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act,
1955 (for Short "the Act").
parties would be referred by their original status in the appeal as Appellant
Nos. 1 and 2 (who are the writ petitioners Nos. 1 and 2) and the respondent as
the Government of India.
appellant No. 1, Bhanwaroo Khan and the appellant No. 2 - wife of the appellant
No. 1, are said to be residents of Village Hammoosar, Tehsil Ratangarh, in the
State of Rajasthan and at present residing at Sardar Sahar,
District Churu, Rajasthan. They had left India after partition of the country and became citizens of Pakistan. After obtaining passports from the
Pakistan as nationals/citizens of Pakistan and after obtaining visas from Indian
High Commission in the year 1955, the appellants entered India via Atari Check Post, Border of
Punjab on 12th
to the procedure a foreigner coming from Pakistan is required to attend the office of the Registration authority of the
District in which they have to stay. The appellants reported to the District
Superintendent of Police, Churu on 14th February, 1955 about their arrival to India and an entry was made in the
Register of Foreigners visit on Serial No. 31. The appellants thereafter
reported at the Police Station, Ratangarh on the same day. Again on 7th May, 1955 the appellants attended the Police
Station, Ratangarh and informed that they were leaving India for Pakistan by night train and accordingly an entry was made in the
Register at Serial No. 6.
of returning back to Pakistan the appellants kept themselves
underground. In 1984 a Pakistani national was arrested at Sardarsahar. Being
afraid of arrest and after consultation the appellants applied to the State
Government for registration as citizens of India. On this, Home Department sent a message No. F.1(4) Home/Gr.IV/84 dated
13.3.1984 (Annexure R-6) to the Superintendent of Police, Churu, State of
Rajasthan, mentioning that Bhanwroo Khan was a national of Pakistan. At that
time no case was pending with the Superintendent of Police, Churu.
Superintendent of Police, Churu by his wireless message dated 15th March, 1984 gave his reply. On the receipt of
the reply, the Home Department demanded a detailed note in the matter. On
receipt of instructions S.H.O. Police Station Ratangarh and Sardarsahar
conducted a detailed enquiry, report of which was sent to the Home Department
through Superintendent of Police, Churu. On receipt of the enquiry report the
Home Department wrote to the Superintendent of Police, Churu to keep a close
watch on the appellants till decision is taken by the Government.
Superintendent of Police, Churu on 29th January, 1987 issued notices and sent to S.H.O.
Police Station Sardarsahar for service. The service of these notices were
effected on 22nd
Immediately after the service of notices by the Superintendent of Police, Churu
the appellants filed the Writ Petition No. 837 of 1987 dated 10th July, 1987 in
the High Court of Rajasthan alleging therein that they had acquired the
citizenship of India and they were being unnecessarily harassed by the Police.
The two prayers made by the appellants in the writ petition were as follows:
by an appropriate, writ, direction or order the respondents may be prohibited
from arresting and deporting the petitioners to Pakistan forcibly.
petitioners may be ordered to be treated as Indian citizens, or such relief
which may be just and proper under the circumstances may be granted."
writ petition was taken up for hearing by a Single Judge and dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge Civil Special Appeal No. 164 of 1992
was filed in the High Court along with an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act to condone the delay of 98 days in filing the appeal.
Division Bench condoned the delay of 98 days in filing the appeal. The appeal
was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 17th May, 1994. Civil Appeal is directed against this judgment.
16th September, 1994 on a representation made by the counsel for the
appellants, this Court directed that the appellants would individually or
collectively make an application before the authorities under the Citizenship
Act and the concerned authorities would decide the same as soon as possible and
the Court be communicated the result thereon. On 25th September, 1995 the Government of India placed on record the order
dated 21st July, 1995 passed under Section 9 (2) of the
Citizenship Act rejecting their claim to be Indian citizens. Thereafter, the
appellants filed the Writ Petition No. 737 of 1995 challenging the order passed
by the authorities under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act.
for the appellants addressed arguments in the civil appeal as well as the writ
petition simultaneously. According to him the facts were over-lapping and the
point decided in the civil appeal would have a bearing on the result of the
writ petition as well.
for the appellants contended that the appellants were born in India to Indian parents. Their brothers
and sisters are living in India. All
their children were born in India and are
living in India.
the appellants being more than 70 years of age required support in their old
age from their children and they should not be deported from the country.
Simply obtaining of passports from a foreign country is not sufficient to prove
that the appellants had abandoned their natural citizenship of India. That the authorities erred in
rejecting their applications under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act.
appearing for the State of Rajasthan and
the Union of India have refuted these submission and argued that the act of the
appellants in migrating to Pakistan after
partition of the country and obtaining passports from the Government of Pakistan
declaring themselves to be citizens of Pakistan raises a presumption against the appellants that they are citizens of India. That the appellants obtained visas
from Government of India after declaring themselves to be a citizens of Pakistan. Instead of returning back to Pakistan after the expiry of the visa period
or getting the visa extended the appellants remained underground. On being
detected they are liable to be deported to Pakistan. That a passport obtained by a person from a foreign country is
relevant in an enquiry as to the citizenship of the person holding the
passport. That a conclusive presumption could be raised that the appellants
were the citizenship of Pakistan.
for the parties have been heard. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the
Citizenship Act provides that if any question arises as to whether, when or how
any person has acquired the citizenship of another country, it shall be
determined by such authority, in such manner, and having regard to such rules
of evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf. Rule 3 of Schedule III of the
Citizenship Rules, 1956 (for short 'the Rules') provides:
The fact that a citizen of India has
obtained on any date a passport from the Government of any other country shall
be conclusive proof of his having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that
country before that date." Relying upon this Rule the Union of India in
its order passed under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act dated 21st July, 1995 determined the national status of
the appellants to be that of Pakistani.
constitution Bench of this Court in Izhar Ahmad Khan & validity of Rule 3
of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules and the order passed under Section 9
(2) of the Citizenship Act where the person concerned had obtained a Pakistan
passport and observed in para 34 as under:
dealing with this question, it may also be relevant to consider the practical
aspect of the rule; and that takes us to the procedure which has to be followed
in Pakistan in obtaining a passport from the
Government of that country for travel to India.
the objects which the Act was incidentally intended to achieve was to meet the
emergency which arose as a result of the partition of the country into India and Pakistan, and the relevant rules are also primarily applicable to
Indian nationals who on going to Pakistan obtained passport from the Government of that country.
it is not disputed that according to the laws prevailing in Pakistan, a person is not entitled to apply
for or obtain a passport unless he is a citizen of Pakistan under its Citizenship Act. Besides,
the prescribed form of the application requires that the applicant should make
a declaration to the effect that he is a citizen of Pakistan and the said declaration has to be
accepted by the Pakistan authorities before a passport is
issued. In the course of the enquiry as to the citizenship of the applicant, declaration
by officials of Pakistan about the truth of the statement of
the applicant are also required to be filed. Thus, the procedure prescribed by
the relevant Pakistan laws makes it abundantly clear that
the application for the passport has to be made by a citizen of Pakistan, it has to contain a declaration to
that effect and the truth of the declaration has to be established to the
satisfaction of the Pakistan officials before a passport is
granted. When a passport is obtained under these circumstances, so far as the
Pakistan Government is concerned, there can be no doubt that it would be
entitled to claim the applicant as its own citizen. The citizen would be estopped
from claiming against the Pakistan Government that the statement made by him
about his status was untrue. In such a case, if the impugned rule prescribes
that the obtaining of a passport from the Pakistan Government by an Indian
national, (which normally would be the result of the prescribed application
voluntarily made by him) conclusively proves the voluntary acquisition of
Pakistani citizenship, it would be difficult to hold that the rule is not a
rule of evidence. In our opinion, it would be pedantic and wholly unrealistic
to contend that the rule in question does not purport to assess the probative
value of fact A in the matter of proving fact B but imports considerations
which are relevant to substantive law. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the
impugned rule is a rule of evidence and falls within the scope prescribed by S.
9 (2). The challenge to its validity on the ground that it is a rule of
substantive law must therefore, fail." The Supreme Court held that the
conclusive presumption could be raised of the fact that a citizen of India who has obtained on any date a
passport from the Government of another country of having voluntarily acquired
the citizenship of that country before that date.
present case, the Government of India in its order dated 21st July, 1995 passed
under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act (which has been impugned in the writ
. . There is no dispute in this case that the applicants went to Pakistan and
acquired the Pakistani passport voluntarily. They stayed there for three years
which is not a short period. They obtained Pakistani passport after applying
for it and after declaring themselves as Pakistani nationals. Further, the
applicants have failed to adduce any documentary evidence to show that the
Pakistani passport was obtained in fraud or under compelling circumstances,
there may not be any hesitation whatsoever in declaring them Pakistani
THEREFORE the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it
under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and Rules made thereunder and
consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and relevant
material on records, has come to a conclusion that the acquisition of a Pakistani
passport and visa for visit to India by the applicants were voluntary acts and
there was no compulsion on them. The applicants acquired the Pakistan citizenship voluntarily and
therefore their claim to be Indian citizens deserves to be rejected and is
hereby rejected." We do not find any infirmity in the order dated 21st July, 1995 determining the national status of
the appellants under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act. Before us as well,
the appellants failed to prove by any evidence whatsoever that they had not
voluntarily migrated to Pakistan and had obtained the Pakistani passports under
compelling circumstances. Rather their conduct after coming to India also shows
that they had voluntarily migrated to Pakistan and obtained the passports from
then Government of Pakistan after declaring themselves to be citizens of
Pakistan. Soon after coming to India as per rules they got themselves
registered with the concerned registration authority. On 7th May, 1955 on the
expiry of the visa period they again went to the Police Station, Ratangarh and
declared that they would be going back to Pakistan by the evening train.
of returning back to Pakistan they illegally stayed in India.
the intention of the appellants been that they had not acquired the citizenship
of Pakistan and the passport from that country
voluntarily as has been projected before us then they would not have declared
their intention of returning to Pakistan on the expiry of the visa period on 7th May, 1955. Further, they would not have gone
would have been made by them way back in the year 1955, to acquire the
citizenship of India afresh. The order passed by the
Union of India is factually correct and in accordance with law.
agree with the High Court that a case for interference with the order of
deportation is not made out. Long stay in the country and enrolment in the
voters' list would not confer any right to an alien to continue to stay in the
country. We do not find any infirmity either with the reasoning adopted or the
conclusion arrived at by the High Court, or even by the Government of India in
its order dated 21st
July, 1995 passed
under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
the conclusion of the cases, counsel for the appellants contended that the
application of the appellants under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act is pending
with the concerned authorities and the observations made in this case might
prejudice the claim made by the appellants under Section 5 of the Citizenship
Act. We have decided the civil appeal against the order passed by the High
Court of Rajasthan arising from the civil writ petition filed by the appellants
in the said Court and the claim made thereunder. Similarly, we have decided the
writ petition filed in this Court directed against the order passed by the
Government of India under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act. No opinion on
the merits or demerits of the application filed by the appellants under Section
5 of the Citizenship Act has been expressed. It would be open to the
authorities to proceed and decide the application, if any, filed by the
appellants under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act and decide the same (if not
already decided) in accordance with law.
the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit either in the appeal or in
the writ petition and dismiss the same. The authorities are hereinafter put at
liberty to act in accordance with law.
Raju ) .J.