# &,84 MOHD. AYUB KHAN v. COl\'1MISSIONER OF POLICE, MADRAS AND_ ANOTIIER

- **Citation:** [1965] 2 S.C.R. 884
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-02-05
- **Bench:** K. SUBBA RAo, K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, J. C. Shah, S. M. Sikri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/84-mohd-ayub-khan-v-col-1missioner-of-police-madras-and-anotiier-3366
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Indian Citizenship Act, 1955-Determination of. disputed citizenship
by Central Government under s. 9(2)-Enquiry for that _ purpose urrder
Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, whether quasi-judicial proceedinz
-Reasonable opportunity to affected person whether necesSary-V alidity
o/ s. 9 and paragraph 3 of Schedule Ill to the Rule('.
The appellant was ordered by the Commissioner ·of Police Madras to - C
leave India because he had obtained a Pakistan passport and had thereby
become the citizen of a foreign country. He made an application to tho
Central Governr.ient under s. 9(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 for ,
the determination of his citizenship. The Central Goveinment rejected his
claim to Indian Citizenship without giving him a bearing. The appellant
thereupon filed a writ petition before the High Court in which he challenged
the validity of s, 9 of the Citizenship Act and also-that of Paragraph 3
D
of Sch. III to the Citizenship Rules, 1956. The High Court rejected these
contentions and also his further contention that the enquiry prescribed by
R. 30 of the Citizenship rules conducted by the Central Government for the
purpose of a decision under s. 9(2) is a quasi-judicial process in which a
reasonable opportunity to the affected citizen to prove bis case is necessary.
With certificate of fitness granted by the High Court the appellant came to
this Court.
, HELD(i) If voluntary acquisition of citizenship of another country
determines Indian Citizenship within the meaning of s. 9(1) and by virtue
of paragraph 3 of Sch. III of the Citizenship Rules a conclusive presumption of voluntary acquisition of citizenship is to be raised from the obtaining of a passport from the Government of any other country, it wowd
be implicit that the obtaining of a passport was the result of the exercise of
free volition by the citizen. This view is strengthened by the scheme of
s. 9(2) read with Rule 30 which contemplates an enquiry by an authority
prescribed· under sub-s. (2) for determination of the question whether
citizenship of another country bas been acquired by an Indian Citizen. [892
D-E]
(ii) Determination of the ').Uestion as to whether, when, and how
foreign citiz_enship bas been acqwred postulates an approach as in a quasijudicial enquiry : the citizen cancemed must be given duo notice of the
nature of the action which in the view of the authority involves termination
of Indian Citizenship, and reasonable opportunity must be afforded to the
citizen to convince the authority that what is alleged against him is not
true. [891 B-DJ
(iii) Obtaining of a passport of a foreign country cannot in all cases
mean merely receiving the passport.
Cases may be visualised in which
on account of force or fraud a pe=n may be compelled or induced to .
obtain a passport from a foreign country. It would be difficult to say
that in such a case the passport has been 'obtained' within the meaning
of paragraph 3,of_ Sch. III. [891 G-H]
(iv) The question whether the passport was voluntarily
obtained
cannot be decided by the foreign country, representative of which issue!
-
E
F
G
II
AYUB KHAN v. COMMISSIONER (Shah. J.)
885
A
a passport; and mere issue of a passport may not always be regarded
decisive of the 'l,Uestion that the passport was voluntarily obtained. Section (2) read with r. 30 confers the power to determine whether Indian
Citizenship is terminated upon the specified authority, and in exercising
that power the authority is guided by the statutory rules of evidence. It
would be impossible to bold that termination of Indian Citiiensbip depends
upon the acuon of a foreign country in iS>Uing tbe passport.
[89~ F-G]
B
(v) The appellant was not given opportunity by the Central Government to prove his case that the Pakistan passport had not been voluntar!Jy
obtained by him. The C-i!ntral Government had therefore to re-detemune
the qu~stion of his cittz~nship after giving him an opportunity to prove
his c.,c, [893 A-Bl
c
Ov1L APPELLATE JURISD

## Text

I
&,84
MOHD. AYUB KHAN
v.
COl\'1MISSIONER OF POLICE, MADRAS AND_ ANOTIIER
February 5, 1965
A
[K. SUBBA RAo, K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH,
B,
J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.)
Indian Citizenship Act, 1955-Determination of. disputed citizenship
by Central Government under s. 9(2)-Enquiry for that _ purpose urrder
Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, whether quasi-judicial proceedinz
-Reasonable opportunity to affected person whether necesSary-V alidity
o/ s. 9 and paragraph 3 of Schedule Ill to the Rule('.
The appellant was ordered by the Commissioner ·of Police Madras to - C
leave India because he had obtained a Pakistan passport and had thereby
become the citizen of a foreign country. He made an application to tho
Central Governr.ient under s. 9(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 for ,
the determination of his citizenship. The Central Goveinment rejected his
claim to Indian Citizenship without giving him a bearing. The appellant
thereupon filed a writ petition before the High Court in which he challenged
the validity of s, 9 of the Citizenship Act and also-that of Paragraph 3
D
of Sch. III to the Citizenship Rules, 1956. The High Court rejected these
contentions and also his further contention that the enquiry prescribed by
R. 30 of the Citizenship rules conducted by the Central Government for the
purpose of a decision under s. 9(2) is a quasi-judicial process in which a
reasonable opportunity to the affected citizen to prove bis case is necessary.
With certificate of fitness granted by the High Court the appellant came to
this Court.
, HELD(i) If voluntary acquisition of citizenship of another country
determines Indian Citizenship within the meaning of s. 9(1) and by virtue
of paragraph 3 of Sch. III of the Citizenship Rules a conclusive presumption of voluntary acquisition of citizenship is to be raised from the obtaining of a passport from the Government of any other country, it wowd
be implicit that the obtaining of a passport was the result of the exercise of
free volition by the citizen. This view is strengthened by the scheme of
s. 9(2) read with Rule 30 which contemplates an enquiry by an authority
prescribed· under sub-s. (2) for determination of the question whether
citizenship of another country bas been acquired by an Indian Citizen. [892
D-E]
(ii) Determination of the ').Uestion as to whether, when, and how
foreign citiz_enship bas been acqwred postulates an approach as in a quasijudicial enquiry : the citizen cancemed must be given duo notice of the
nature of the action which in the view of the authority involves termination
of Indian Citizenship, and reasonable opportunity must be afforded to the
citizen to convince the authority that what is alleged against him is not
true. [891 B-DJ
(iii) Obtaining of a passport of a foreign country cannot in all cases
mean merely receiving the passport.
Cases may be visualised in which
on account of force or fraud a pe=n may be compelled or induced to .
obtain a passport from a foreign country. It would be difficult to say
that in such a case the passport has been 'obtained' within the meaning
of paragraph 3,of_ Sch. III. [891 G-H]
(iv) The question whether the passport was voluntarily
obtained
cannot be decided by the foreign country, representative of which issue!
-
E
F
G
II
AYUB KHAN v. COMMISSIONER (Shah. J.)
885
A
a passport; and mere issue of a passport may not always be regarded
decisive of the 'l,Uestion that the passport was voluntarily obtained. Section (2) read with r. 30 confers the power to determine whether Indian
Citizenship is terminated upon the specified authority, and in exercising
that power the authority is guided by the statutory rules of evidence. It
would be impossible to bold that termination of Indian Citiiensbip depends
upon the acuon of a foreign country in iS>Uing tbe passport.
[89~ F-G]
B
(v) The appellant was not given opportunity by the Central Government to prove his case that the Pakistan passport had not been voluntar!Jy
obtained by him. The C-i!ntral Government had therefore to re-detemune
the qu~stion of his cittz~nship after giving him an opportunity to prove
his c.,c, [893 A-Bl
c
Ov1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 250 of
1964.
Apceal from the judgment and order dated November 1959,
of the lvladras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 46 of 1959.
P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the appellants.
A. Ranganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the responD
dents.
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-Genera/, and R. H. Dhebar, for the
intervener.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
Shah J.
The appellant Mohd. Ayub Khan petitioned the
High Court of Madras for a writ of mandamus restraining
the
Commissioner of Police, Madras, from taking action pursuant to
th,e order of the Government of Madras, Home
Department,
No. 83546, dated May 28, 1958 and from interfering with the
appellant's rights as a citizen of India. The petition was dismissed
F
by Balakrishna Ayyar, J., and the order was confirmed in appeal
by a Division Bench of the High Court. With certificate granted
by the High Court, the appellant has appealed to this Court.
The appellant, who claims that he had acquired the status of
an Indian citizen on the commencement of the Constitution as a
person who had been ordinarily resident in the territory of India
G
for not less than five years immediately preceding that date, was
served with a notice dated July 17, 1957 informing him that as
he had obtained Pakistan Passport No. 071377, dated April I,
1953 he should leave India within one month from the date of
service of the notice, and in default of compliance he would be
H
prosecuted and deported from India under the Foreigners Act,
1946 as amended by the Foreigners Law (Amendment)
Act,
1957. On August 19, 1957, the appellant applied to the Collector
of Madras for registration as a citizen of India. Later he applied
886
SUPREME COUllT REPORTS
[1965] 2 S.C.ll.
to the Central Government under s. 9 ( 2) of the Citizenship Act,
A
1955 to determine the question whether he continued to remain
a citizen of India, and prayed that he may be given an opporturiity
to produce all ''necessary evidence in support of his claim as
regards Indian citizenship".
Without affording him that opportunity, however, the Government of India by order, dated May 7,
1958 rejected the application of the appellant under s. 9 of the
B
Citizenship Act.
In support of his petition before the High Court for issue of a
writ of mandamus, the appellant urged that s. 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 was ultra vires the Parliament and cl. 3 of Sch. ill
to the Citizenship Rules was also ultra vires the Central GovernC
ment, and that in any event Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules
contemplated a quasi-judicial inquiry in which an opportunity
must be given to the party sought to be affected, to make a
representation and to adduce evidence to show that the acquisition of a passport from the High Commissioner for Pakistan was
not voluntazy. Balakrishna Ayyar, J., rejected these contentions.
D
In dealing with the question whether the order of the Central
Government was Ul:lenforceable because opportunity to
prove
the appellant's case that he had not voluntarily renounced Indian
citizenship, the learned Judge observed that the appellant "had
not indicated on what points he intended to lead evidence and
what kind of evidence he intended to adduce".
E
In appeal the High Court held that the appellant ''had in fact
made a declaration on the basis of which the passport was obtained
and the allegations made by him did not even imply that he was
forced to make a false declaration". In the view of the High Court
s. 9 lays "down an objective test and when the individual had F
brought himself within it, the law determines the legal consequences of the situatron, independently of his intent or understanding", and therefore there was no scope for an enquiry of
the nature claimed by the appellant.
Before dealing with the arguments raised by counsel for the G
appellant in this appeal, certain constitutional and legislative
provisions which have a bearing thereon may be· set out. Part Il
·Of the Constitution deals with the topic of citizenship. By Art. 5 a
person who at the commencement of the Constitution had hia
domicile in the territory of India and who was born in the territory of India, or either of whose parents was born in the territory H
of ~dia, or who had been ordinarily resident in the territory of
India for not less than five years immediately preceding such
AYUB KHAN V. COMMISSIONER (Shah, J.)
887
A
commencement was deemed a citizen of India. By virtue of
cl. (3) of Art. 1 the territory of India is comprised of the States,
the Union territories and such other
territories
as
may
be
acquired. Article 6 deals with the acquisition of rights of citizenship of persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan, and
Art; 7 deals with the rights of citizenship of migrants to Pakistan.
B
Article 8 deals with the rights o( citizenship of certain persons
of Indian origin residing outside India. Article 9 provides :
"No person shall be a citizen of India by virtu~ of
article 5, or be deemed to be a citizen of India by
virtue of article 6 or article 8, if he has voluntarily
c
acquired the citizenship of any foreign State."
Article 10 provides that every person who is or is deemed to be
a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions shall,
subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen.
By Art. 11 Parliament is
D authorised to make provision with respect to the acquisition and
termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizen·
ship. Article 367 cl. (3) defined a "foreign State" as any State
other than India, but the President was by the proviso thereto
authorised, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, to declare by order any State not to be a foreign State for
E
such purposes as may be specified in the order. By a declnration
made under the Constitution (Declaration as to foreign States)
Order, 1950, it was declared that, subject to the provisions of any
law made by Parliament, every country within the Commonwealth
was not to be a foreign State for the purpose of Art. 9 of the
Constitution. Pakistan could not therefore be regarded as a
F foreign State, until legislation was enacted by Parliament to the
contrary. In 1955 the Parliament enacted the Citizenship Act 57
of 1955 to provide for the acquisition and termination of Indian
citizenship. The Act made detailed provisions for acquisition of
citizenship by birth, by descent, by registration, by naturalisation
and by incorporation of territory in ss. 3 to 7 of the Act. In
G ss. 8, 9 & 10 provision was made for renunciation, termination
and deprivation of citizenship. By s. 9 it was enacted that :
H
"(1) Any citizen of India who by naturalisation,
registration or otherwise voluntarily acquires or has at
any time between the 26th January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act voluntarily acquired, the citizenship of another country shall, upon such acquisition or,
as the case may be, such commencement, cease to be a
citizen of India :
USup./6S-11
888
SUPREME COUB.T REPORTS
[1965] 2 S.C.R.
"Provided that nothing in this
sub-section shall
A
apply to a citizen of India who, during any war in which
India may be engaged, voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, until the Central Government
otherwise directs.
(2) H any question arises as to whether, when or
B
how any person has acquii;ed 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."
By s. 18 ( 1) the Central Government was authorised to make C
rules, inter alia, for setting up the authority to determine the
question of acquisition of citizenship of another country, and the
procedure to be followed by such authority and rules of evidence
relating to such cases. In exercise of the authority under s. 18(1)
the Citizenship Rules, 1956 were framed by the Central Government and they came into force on July 7, 1956. By Rule 30, D
it was provided :
" ( 1) H any question arises as to whether, when or
how any person has acquired the citizenship of another
country, the authority to determine such question shall,
for the purposes of section 9 ( 2) , be the Central Government.
( 2) The Central Government shall in determining
any such question have due regard to the rules of evidence specified in Schedule ID."
Schedule ill set out the rules referred to in Rule 30(2). Causes 1,
2 and 3 are material :
"l. Where it appears to the Central Government
that a citizen of India has voluntarily acquired the
citizenship of any other country, it may require him to
prove within such period as may be fixed by it in this
behalf, that he has not voluntarily acquired the citizenship; of that country and the burden of proving that he
has not so acquired such citizenship shall be on him.
"2. For the purpose of determining any question
relating to the acquisition by an Indian citizen of the
citizenship of any other country, the Central Government may make such reference as it thinks fit in respect
of that question or of any matter relating thereto, to
its Embassy in that country or to the Government of
E
F
G
H
A
B
AYUB KHAN v. COMMISSIONER (Shah, /.)
889
that country and act on any report or information
received in pursuance of such reference.
"3. 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 dato."
Acquisition of citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution was governed by Arts. 5, 6 and 7. If, however, a person
bad voluntarily acquired citizenship of a foreign State he could
not claim the status of a citizen under Art. 5, and he could not
C
be deemed to be a citizen by virtue of Art. 6 or Art. 8. Article 10
continues, subject to the provisions of any law to be made by
Parliament, the right of citizenship acquired or deemed to be
a<:quired under the foregoing Articles.
Power of Parliament to
enact legislation to make provision with respect to the acquisition
and termination of citizenship is as a matter of abundant caution
D
affirmed by Art. 11. The Parliament by s. 9 of the Citizenship
Act, 1955 legislated in regard to determination of citizenship
and provided, inter alia, that a person who has voluntarily acquired
since January 26, 1950 or acquires lifter the commencement of
the Act citizenship of another country, shall cease to be a citizen
of India, and that if any question arises as to whether citizenship
E
of another country has been acquired by a person, the question
must be determined by the authority, in such manner and having
regard to such rules of evidence. as may be prescribed in that
behalf.
This Court has pronounced upon the legislative competence
F
of the Parliament to enact s. 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 in
lzhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India(').
In the same case
challenge to the validity of Rule 3 of Sch. ill to the Rules framed
under the Citizenship Act, 1955 was also negatived. Mr. Ram
Reddy for the appellant contended that as
certain
important
aspects of the plea of invalidity were not presented before the
G
C'-0urt at the hearing of !Viar Ahmad Khan's case('), we shoulcl
again proceed to consider the challenge to the validity of Rule 3 of
Sch. ill and s. 9 of the Citizenship Act limited to those arguments. We are unable, however, to countenance the submission.
This Court has held on the arguments presented before the Court
in lzhar Ahmad Khan's case(') that s. 9 of the Act was validly
H
enacted by the Parliament. and that Rule 3 of Sch. ill was competently made by the Central Government in exercise of the
(1) [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 235.
890
SUPllEMB COURT REPORTS
(1965) 2 S.C.R.
powers conferred by s. 18 of the Citizenship Act.
Assuming A
that certain aspects of the question were not brought to the notice
of the Court, we see no grounds for entering upon re-examination
of the question. It may be pointed out that the judgment of the
Court in Izhar Ahmad Khan's case(') was followed by this Court
in the Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Mohd. Khan(').
B
The question which survives for determination is whether the
appellant can challenge the validity of the order of the Commissioner of Police pursuant to the order made by the Central Government under s. 9(2) of the Act on the plea t.1-iat he had not
"voluntarily obtained" a passport from the High Commissioner for
Pakistan in India. In the petition as originally filed, the Union c
of India was not impleaded as a party-respondent and on the
state of authorities then in force the appellant could not implead
the Union of India as a party-respondent to the petition filed
by him in the High Court of Madras. When this appeal was heard
on December 7, 1964. notice was issued calling upon the Union
to produce the orders and proceedings under s.
9 (2) . of the D
Citizenship Act relating to the case of the appellant. Pursuant
to the direction the relevant proceedings and order have been
produced and an affidavit has been filed by the Under Secretary
in the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is now common ground that
in the inquiry contemplated by Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules,
no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to prove his case that
E
he had not obtained the passport voluntarily from the High Commissioner for Pakistan
Section 9 ( I ) of the Citizenship Act provides for termination
of citizenship of an Indian citizen if he has (subject to the proviso
which is not material) by naturalisation, registration or otherwise, F
voluntarily acquired citizenship of another country.
Subject to
the exception in the proviso therefore naturalisation, registration
or acquisition of citizenship of another country operates to tenninate the citizenship of India. Acquisition of citizenship of another
country to determine Indian citizenshin must however be voluntary. By sub-s. (2) provision is made for setting up an authority G
to determine the question where, when and how citizenshiu of
another country has been acquired, and by Rule 30 tl)e Central
Government is designated as the authority, which is invested with
power to determine the question in such manner. and having
regard to such rules of evidence as may be prescribed. ProvisiO!I
for prescribing rules of evidence, having re!\ard to which
the H
question of acquisition of citizenship of another country has to In
(I} [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 235.
(2) [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 288.
AYUB KHAN V. ~SSI<>Ni!ll (Shah, /.)
891
A determined, clearly indicates that the order is not to be made on
the mere satisfaction of the authority without enquiry, that the
citi7.cn concerned ha8 obtained a passpon of another country.
The question as to whether when and how foreign citizenship
hes been acquired has to be determined having regard to the
rules of evidence pr~ribed, and termination of Indian citizenB ahip being the consequence of voluntary acquisition of foreign
citiun•hip, the authority has also to determine that such latter
cirivmahip has been voluntarily acquired. Determination of the
question postulates an approach as in a quasi:,judicial enquiry :
the citizen concerned must be given due notice of the nature of
the action which in the view of the authority involves termination
C of Indian citizenship, . and reasonable opportunity must be
afforded to the citizen to convince the authority that what is
alloged against him is not true. What the scope and extent of ille
enquiry to be made by the authority on a plea raised by the
citizen concerned should be, depends upon the circumstances of
0
each case.
Paragraph 1 of Sch. m which raises a rebuttable presumption, when it appears to the Central Government that a citir.en
has voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship, casts the burden of
proof upon the citizen to disprove such acquisition, and Paragraph
2 which authorises the Central Government to make enquiries for
E the purpose of determining the question raised, strongly support
the view that the Central Government must arrive at a decision
that the Indian citizen has voluntarily acquired foreign citizenshin,
before action can be taken against him on the footing that his
citizenship is terminated. Paragraph 3 raises a conclusive presumption that a citizen of India who has obtained a passoort
F
{rem a foreign country on any date, has before that date voluntarily acquired citizenship of that other country. J'ly the application of the rule in Paragraph 3 the authority must regard obtaining
of a foreign passport on a particular date as conclusive proof
that the Indian citizen has voluntarily acquired citizenship of
8llOtller country before that date. But obtaining of a passport of
G a foreign country cannot in all cases merely mean receiving the
passport. H a plea is raised by the citizen that he had not
voluntarily obtained the passport, the citizen must be afforded an
opportunity to prove that fact. Cases may be visualized in which
on account of force a person may be compelled or on account of
fraud or mis-representation he may be induced, without
any
H mtention of renunciation of his Indian citizenship, to obtain a
piSS'pOrt from 11 foreign country. It would be difficult to say that
IUCh a passport is one which has been. "obtained" within the
892
SUPlU!ME COURT llBPORTS
[1965] 2 S.C.R.
meaning of Paragraph 3 of Sch. ill and that a conclusive preA
sumption must arise that he has acquired voluntarily citizenship
of that country.
We are not concerned in this case with the truth or otherwise
of the plea raised by the appellant in his petition before the High
Court that he was compelled to obtain the passport from ilie
B
High Commissioner for Pakistan. Balakrishna Ayyar, J., observed
that the plea of the appellant was not bona fide.
But it is not
the function of the courts to determine the question whether the
plea raised is true or not : it is for the authority invested with
power under s. 9 (2) to determine that question if it is raised.
The High Court in appeal was of the view that s. 9 laid down an
C
objective test and once it was found that the passport was obtained
in fact by an Indian citizen from another country, the law determined the legal consequences of that conduct and no question of
his "intent or understanding arose".' We are unable to agree
with that view. If voluntary acquisition of citizenship of another
country determines Indian citizenship within the meaning of D
s. 9 ( 1 ) , and by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Sch. ill of the Citizenship Rules a conclusive presumption of voluntary acquisition of
citizenship is to be raised from the obtaining of a passport from
tho Government of any other country, it would be implicit that
the obtaining of a passport was the result of the exercise of free
volition by the citizen. This view is strengthened by the scheme
E
of s. 9(2) read with Rule 30 which contemplates an enquiry by an
authority prescribed under sub-s. ( 2) for determination of the
question whether citizenship of another country has been acquired
by an Indian citizen.
Counsel for the State of . Madras submitted that the question
whether the passport was voluntarily obtained must be decided
by the foreign country, representative of which issues the pa~
port, and mere issue of a foreign
passport must always
be
regarded as decisive of the question that the passport was voluntarily obtained. Buts. 9(2) read with Rule 30 confers the power
to detern)ine whether Indian citizenship is terminated upon the G
specified authority, and in exercising that power the authority is
guided by the statutory rules of evidence. It would be impossible
to hold that termination of Indian citizenship depends upon
action of a foreign country in issuing the passport.
We are therefore of the view that the High Court was in error
in holding that the decision of the Government of India without H
giving an opportunity to the appellant to prove his case that he
had been compelled by the police to obtain a pas~rt from the
AYUB KHAN V. COMMISSIONER (Shah, /.)
893
A High Commissioner for Pakistan will sustain the order of deportation against the appellant. It will of course be open to the Central
Government to determine whether the appellant has lost the
citizenship of India by voluntarily acquiring the citizenship .of
Pakistan by obtaining a passport from the High Commissioner for
Pakistan, or in any other manner. But the determination must
B be made in accordance with law.
c
The appeal is allowed, and it is ordered that the order of
deportation passed by the Commissioner of Police, Madras shall
not be enforced until the Central Government determines the
status of the appellant according to law. No order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.