# [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 288

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 288
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Ga.Tendragadkar, K. N. Wa:S-Choo, N. Rajagopala Ayyanoar, T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1962-supp-3-s-c-r-288-2378
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

. Citiu.,hir>-Wh•th.r a P'rson acquired the Citizr.n,,hip of
Foreign Stale-Question. to ,,, d1cided b11 Cmtral Goi:anmentForeign J>a.lfsporl doe..ir not automaticali.11 pro1,·p ata..tulory r,e,sser
of lndian Ci1fro1s/11"r>-Citizen,,hipAct, 19.55('17 of 19.55) s. IJ(2)
-CifizP.11shi7i Rule.If, 19.)6, k';ch. III, r. 3.
The Govcmmrnt of Andhra Pradesh ordered the respondents, who had come to India with Pakistan Passport, to
remove thcm~elvcs out of India within a specified date. l'he
rc~poncicnts filed writ petitions in the High Court against the
saicl orclers and the single Judge who heard them held inter
alia that as a result of s. 9 read with r. 3 in Sch. IJI of the
Citizenship Rules as soon as it is shown that a person had
::tcquired a pa'isport from Pakistan Government there is an
automatic statutory crssrr of his citizenship of India. This
decision was challen~ed in appral before the Division Bench
of the High Court of Andhra. The Division Br.nch held that
s. 9 was infra vi,.,,, but found that r. 3 of Sch. II I of
Citizenship Rules was ultra t•irf.8.
However the High Court
made it clrar that it-; decision in
question \\'ould
not
preclu~e the Central Govcrn'n1r.nt from deciding the 'lUestion
, ... hether the present respondents had acquired citizenship of
a foreign co11ntry or not, but it directed that the Central
Governm~nt must ignorer. 3 of sch. Ill \vhich in its view was
ultra l'irr.«~.
It is against this decision of the Divi'.!ion Bench
that the Andhra Governrriel'\t ha-; come up in appeal to this
C'.onrt by certificate gra,lled by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court.
TlrTrl., that the points rai-;ed in these appeals
are
concluded bv the decision of this Court in lzhar Ahmad K hrzn
v. [:.nion of lnrlir:r.
In all ca.ccs where action is proposed to
be taken against persons residin.[{
in
this country on
the
gro11nd that they have acquired Citizenship of a foreign state
and have !Ost in consequence the citizenship of this country
it is essential that that question should fin;t be considered hy
the Cr.ntral Government.
In dealing \'lith the question the
Central Government Would undoubte<lly be rntitlcd to give
dfrct tor. 3 in Sch. III of the Citizehship Rules and deal
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
28!l
with the matrer in accordance with the other relevant rules
framed under the Act
It cannot be said that by virtue of s. 9 of the Act as
~oon as it is shown that a person has acquired a passport
from the Pakistan Government, there is an automatic statu~
tory cesscr of his Citizenship of India.
The questi.on about
the status of the respondents has to be tried by the Central
GOvernrnent and it is 01ily after tJ e Central Government has
rC!ached the conclusion that the respondents have acquired
the citizenship of Pakistan that the authorities can issue order
of deportation against such person.
CIVIL APPELLA'l'E J URISDIC'rION : Civil A ppcals
Nos. 258 -27!l of 1961.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
September 4, HJ57, of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Writ Appeals No. 46, 66 and 73of1957.
T. V. R. -Tatachai·i and P. D. Menon, for
the appellants.
P. Ram Reddy, for respondents in Appeals
Nos. 258, 265, 261, 271, 273, 275 and 279 of 19til.
196!; April 17. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
I96Z
The·Golle,nment of
A.ndhra ·P'f'fh/tsh
••
Sytd Mohd. J(h,n
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This group of twentyGqjendwgadkar J.
two 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 pers

## Text

1&6t
Apdl 17.
288 S"CPREME COURT REPOR'l S [1962] SUPP.
THE GOVERNjfE:XT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
SYED MOHD. KHA..~
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GA.TENDRAGADKAR,
K. N. WA:S-CHOO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANOAR and
T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
. Citiu.,hir>-Wh•th.r a P'rson acquired the Citizr.n,,hip of
Foreign Stale-Question. to ,,, d1cided b11 Cmtral Goi:anmentForeign J>a.lfsporl doe..ir not automaticali.11 pro1,·p ata..tulory r,e,sser
of lndian Ci1fro1s/11"r>-Citizen,,hipAct, 19.55('17 of 19.55) s. IJ(2)
-CifizP.11shi7i Rule.If, 19.)6, k';ch. III, r. 3.
The Govcmmrnt of Andhra Pradesh ordered the respondents, who had come to India with Pakistan Passport, to
remove thcm~elvcs out of India within a specified date. l'he
rc~poncicnts filed writ petitions in the High Court against the
saicl orclers and the single Judge who heard them held inter
alia that as a result of s. 9 read with r. 3 in Sch. IJI of the
Citizenship Rules as soon as it is shown that a person had
::tcquired a pa'isport from Pakistan Government there is an
automatic statutory crssrr of his citizenship of India. This
decision was challen~ed in appral before the Division Bench
of the High Court of Andhra. The Division Br.nch held that
s. 9 was infra vi,.,,, but found that r. 3 of Sch. II I of
Citizenship Rules was ultra t•irf.8.
However the High Court
made it clrar that it-; decision in
question \\'ould
not
preclu~e the Central Govcrn'n1r.nt from deciding the 'lUestion
, ... hether the present respondents had acquired citizenship of
a foreign co11ntry or not, but it directed that the Central
Governm~nt must ignorer. 3 of sch. Ill \vhich in its view was
ultra l'irr.«~.
It is against this decision of the Divi'.!ion Bench
that the Andhra Governrriel'\t ha-; come up in appeal to this
C'.onrt by certificate gra,lled by the Andhra Pradesh High
Court.
TlrTrl., that the points rai-;ed in these appeals
are
concluded bv the decision of this Court in lzhar Ahmad K hrzn
v. [:.nion of lnrlir:r.
In all ca.ccs where action is proposed to
be taken against persons residin.[{
in
this country on
the
gro11nd that they have acquired Citizenship of a foreign state
and have !Ost in consequence the citizenship of this country
it is essential that that question should fin;t be considered hy
the Cr.ntral Government.
In dealing \'lith the question the
Central Government Would undoubte<lly be rntitlcd to give
dfrct tor. 3 in Sch. III of the Citizehship Rules and deal
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
28!l
with the matrer in accordance with the other relevant rules
framed under the Act
It cannot be said that by virtue of s. 9 of the Act as
~oon as it is shown that a person has acquired a passport
from the Pakistan Government, there is an automatic statu~
tory cesscr of his Citizenship of India.
The questi.on about
the status of the respondents has to be tried by the Central
GOvernrnent and it is 01ily after tJ e Central Government has
rC!ached the conclusion that the respondents have acquired
the citizenship of Pakistan that the authorities can issue order
of deportation against such person.
CIVIL APPELLA'l'E J URISDIC'rION : Civil A ppcals
Nos. 258 -27!l of 1961.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
September 4, HJ57, of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Writ Appeals No. 46, 66 and 73of1957.
T. V. R. -Tatachai·i and P. D. Menon, for
the appellants.
P. Ram Reddy, for respondents in Appeals
Nos. 258, 265, 261, 271, 273, 275 and 279 of 19til.
196!; April 17. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
I96Z
The·Golle,nment of
A.ndhra ·P'f'fh/tsh
••
Sytd Mohd. J(h,n
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This group of twentyGqjendwgadkar J.
two 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
il'G2
!'lit ancernment of
A11dhrt. Pradtsli
v.
8yt1l .\I ohd. Kltart
OajmdraraJlaw J.
. .
.
2!10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l062] SUPP.
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.
.
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.
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 H. 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'
3 S.C.R.
,,,;
.
~
SUPREME COURT REPORTS· 291
appellant to forbear from enforcing the said orders
of deportation.
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.
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.
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:
1961
The Goue.rnment of
Andhra l'rodesh
v.
Syed Mohd. Kkao
Go.jtn.dt'agadkar J,
1952
f hf Gor1YnT1Ut1I of
A nt!hra PrD'ksh
••
S:1td Mo/Hi Khan
Gajnidrogadk4r J.
292 SUPREM:I<: COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
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 a. 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
•
-
3 S.C.R..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
293
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.
.
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~
1962
The Government of
Andhra PradeSh
v.
Syed Mohd. Khm
Gajendrag·1dtar J.
196Z
·Tift Ca~mnnunt of
A..dAta Prodtsh
v.
Sy1d Mohd. KA.Jn
Gajt.ndragadkar J,
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
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.
Appe-1ls allowed.
MRS. HEM NOLIN! JUDAH (SINCE Dl~CEASEDJ
AXD AFTER HER LEU AL ltEPRESE!'\TATIVE
MR. ?llARLEA!'\ WlLKIN::iON
t'.
MH.S. ISOLYNJ<; SAltO.J BASHINI BO~t<;
AND OTHEHS
(P. B. GA.JE:>DHAGAJJI<AH, A. K. SAHKAit and
K. N. 'WAXL'llOO, JJ.)
lrilt-J>rnlirrfe-Leff ers of A rlmin isf7 a! inn -Est alili-'i h nunt
of right-l..t:galrr.-Other 111'.rson.~· cla,·niinq under leyrllt:c-JJar of
cl11i1ns-l'r0Uate procr.t?rli ngs-Titlr--.\T ot dr.f crniin£d-Rcs-jud-icaJa·-Estopp(/-l n<tir1n S"ccl!S-~inn Act, !92:i(3.fl of J.92;)), s. 21.)
1
(1)-Co<ie of Cid/ l'roce.fore., 1rws (Acl, .-; nf JflflS) s. 11-
.A
Jnrlilln Etirl,,nce .1ct, 1872 (I of 1872), ·'· JJ.-;_
Onr- Dr. Mi~ Mitter \\'ho owncrl a house died leaving
her mother and three sisters. The plaintiff re~pondent filed a
~uit for a declaration that she \\'as the OYnier of the house.
Her case \\.'as that the dect:asr.d gave the hou:::c to ~frs. ~Ion1in
(another sister) by a will and Mrs.
~fo;nin in turn gifted the
house to the plaintiff. The cas.-· of Mrs. Judah, the defcndantappellant was that Dr. Miss Miller had bequeathed
the
house by a will in
favour of
h~r 1noth('r who in turn
bequeathed the house to her by a will.
!\dmiucdly no probate
. of either of the wills alleged to luvc bl'cn made by Dr. Miss
i'fit1er was taken out. The mother died and it was allegec!