THE GOVERMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus SYED MOHD. KHAN

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This group of twentytwo appeals has been brought to this Court with certificates granted by the Andhra High Court, and they challenge the con ectness of the decision of the said High Court that r. 3 in Sch. III of the Citizenship Hules, 1956 is ultra vires. Twentytwo persons who are the rei, pectivc respondents in these appeals filed twenty-two writ petitions in the Andhra High Court challenging the validity of the orders passed by the appellant, Government of Andhra Pradesh, asking each one of them to remove themselves out of India before the date specified in the notices served on them in that behalf. It appears that all tht: said persons had come to India with a passport issued in their favour by the Govern· ment of Pakistan, and the appellant's case before the High Court was that as a result of tho conduct of the r('spondcnts in a pp lying for and obtain in/.! the Pakistani passport, they hacl lust the citizenship of this country and ha<l voluntarily acquired the citizenship of PakistiHl. That is how the appellant justified tho notices served on the respondents call. ing upon them to )pq.ve India. .

pp. 289–290

The rrspon<lents, on thn other hand, eontc11<led that s.9 of thP Citizcn8hip Act, 1955 (57 of 1955) and r. :J in Sch. III of the Citizenship Rules were 1dtra virc.~ aml they urged that they had not acquiH·d the citizenship of Pakistan ancl continued to be th" citizen8 of India. These writ petitions were tried by Bhimas:mkaran J. The h•arned Judge held tlrn.t the impugned section and tho l:tulc were intra .,,-irM and ho ca.me to the conelusion that as a result of s.9 read with r,3 in Sch. III of the Citizenship Rnles, as soon as it is shown that a person hn,s acquired a passport from the Pakistan Government, there is an automatic statutory ccFser of his citizemhip of India. In the result, the learned ,Judge upheld the validity of tho orders of deportation passed by the appellant agains~ the respondents and dismi~secl the writ, petitions without costs.

p. 290

This decision was challenged by the respond. en ts by preferring :!2 appeals before a Division bench of tho Andhra High Court. The Uivision Bench which heard these appeals held thats. 9 was inf><• 1;ires, but found that. r. 3 of Sch. 3 of tlie Citizcmhip Rul~s was ·ultra vires. In its opinion, the said Huie was outside the authority conferred on the Central Government by 9 (Ii and it also contravened Art.19 of th<' Conetitution. The consequence of these findings inevitably '1.as that the orders of depo1tatfon passed by th<· aprcllant against the rcspcndente were held to be invalid. That is why the appeals preferred by the respondents were allowed and writ of mandamus was issued directing thf' appellant to forbear from enforcing the said orders of deportation.

pp. 290–291

The Court of Appea.l has also observed that under the Citizenship Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the Central Government has been constituted as a Special Tribunal for deciding the qnes· tion as to whether a person has acquired the citizenship of a foreign country or not, and so, before issuing the orders of deportation, it was necessary that. the appellant should have obtained a decisi0n of the Central Government on the point about the status of the respondents. The High Court accord· ingly made it clear that its decision in the appeals in question would not preclude thff Central Government from determining the question whether the respondents have voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another country within the meaning of s. 9 (1), but it added that in deciding the question, the Central Government must ignore r. 3 of Sch. III which, in its opinion, was u.ltra "vires. It is· against this decision of the Division Bench about the in· validity of the impugned Rule that the appellant has come to this Court.

p. 291

The question about the validity of ~ection 9 of the Citizenship Aet and of r. 3 in Sch. III of the Citizenship Rules has been recently considerPd by this Court in petitions Nos. 101 and 136of1959 and 88 of 1961, and this Court has held that both s. 9(2) and r. 3 in t:lch. 3 are intra i·ires. The point raised by the appellant in thfse appeals iP, therefore, concluded in its favour by this decision. This position is not disputed by the respondents.

p. 291

That raises the question about the proper order to be passed in the present appeals. It has been urged before us by Mr. Tatachari for the appellant that the effect of our decision in the case of Izhar Ahmad Khan is that as soon as it is shown:

p. 291

that a person has acquired a passport from a forciizn Government, his citiwnship of India automatically comes to an end, and he contends that in such a case. it is not necessarv thrtt the Central Government should hold any enqui~y an<l make a finding against the p"rson before the appelhnt. can issue an order of deportation against him. In om· opinion, this contention is clearly misconceived. In dealing with tho question a.bout t.hc validity of tho impugned section and the Rule, this Court has, no doubt, stated that "the proof of the fact that a passport from a foreign count.ry has been obtained on a certain dat-0 CDnclusivdy <loterrnines the other fact that beforo that date he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country.'' But in appreciating the effect of this observation, it must be borne in mind that in all the cases with which this Court was then dealing, the question about tho citizenship of the petitioners had been expressly referred to the Central Government-and the Central Government had made its findings on that question. It was after tho Central Government had recorded a finding against the petitioners t.hat they had acquired the citizenship of Pakistan that the sai<l writ petitions came before this Court for final disposal and it is in the light of these facts that this Court proceeded t-0 consider tho contention about the validity of the impugned section am! the impugned rule. It is plain, thercforo, that the observations on which ~Ir. Tatachari relied wero not intended to moan that as soon as it is alleged tha,t passport has been obtained by a person from a foreign Government, the State Government can immediately proceed to deport him without tho ncccssa ry enquiry by the Central Government.. Indeed, it is clear that in the cour~o of the judgment, this Court has empha· sised the fact that the question as to whether a person has lost his citizenship of this country and has acquirc1! the citizenship of a foreign country has to be tried by the Central Government and it is only after the Centrul Government has decided the point the. St1tte Government can deal with the person as a foreigner. It may be that if a passport from a foreign Government is obtained by a citizen, and the case falls under the impugned Rule, the conclusion may follow that he has acquired the citizenship of the foreign country ; . but that conclusion can be drawn only by the appropriate authority authorised under the Act to enquire into question. Therefore, there is no doubt that in all cases where action is proposed to be taken against persons residing in this country on the ground that they have acquired the citizenship of a foreign State and have lost in consequence the citizenship of this country, it is essential that that question should be first considered by the Central Government. In dealing with the question, the Central Government would utldoubtedly be entitled to give effect to the impugned r. 3 in Sch. III and deal with the matter ir:t accordance with the other rf'levant Rules framed under the Act. The decision of the Central Government about the status of the person is the basis on which any further action can be taken against him. Therefore, we see no substance in the argument that the orders of deportation passed by the appellant against the re~pondents should be sustained even without an enquiry by the Central Government about their status. That is why w~ think, in substance, the direction of tha High Court is right, though the High Court was in error in holding that the Central Government should hold the enquiry without reference to r. 3.

pp. 292–293

. In the result, the appeals succeed on the main pomt of law and the decision of the High Court that the impugned r. 3 in Sch. !If i~ invalid is set aside. Even so, we cannot accept the view of the learned trial Judge that there is an automatic cesser of the respondents' citizenship by virtue of s. 9. We hol.d that the ciuestion about tl\e statqs of the respondent~ bas to ho tried by the Central Government and it is only after the Central Goyernment has reached the conclusion that the rcspondentH have acquired the citizcnHhip of Pakistan that the appellnnt can issue orders of deportation against. them. That . being our view, we confirm the writs issued by the High Court restraining the <ippdlant from giving effect to the impuc:ncd orders of deportation until the question about tho respcmdents' status is deter· mined by the Central Government. There wou hi be no order aR to costs.

pp. 293–294

Appe-1ls allowed. 1 MRS. HEM NOLIN! JUDAH (SINCE Dl~CEASEDJ AXD AFTER HER LEU AL ltEPRESE!'\TATIVE

p. 294

MR. ?llARLEA!'\ WlLKIN::iON MH.S. ISOLYNJ<; SAltO.J BASHINI BO~t<;

p. 294

AND OTHEHS (P. B. A. K. and K. N. JJ.)

p. 294

-Est

p. 294

111'.rson.~· caJa·-Estopp(/-l S"ccl!S-~inn

p. 294

11- .1ct, (I

p. 294

Mi~

p. 294

and The re~pondent ~uit that of

p. 294

~frs. ~Ion1in by ~fo;nin

p. 294

The Judah, that of h~r

p. 294

luvc The

p. 294