Case: State of U.P Vs. Mohammad Din and Ors

respondents and the second appeal by the original defendants failed on the same ground on which the appeal in the cognate case failed. Hence this appeal by special leave. 4. Respondents in each appeal sought a declaration that they were citizens of India. The appellants contended that the respondents had acquired the citizenship of Pakistan and accordingly had ceased to be the citizens of India and therefore are not entitled to the declaration sought by them. On these rival contentions the specific issue that arose was whether, when or how the respondents had acquired the citizenship of another country ? 5. Section 9 of The Citizenship Act, 1955 which came into force on December 30, 1955 reads as under : 9. Termination of citizenship for the (1) Any citizen of India who by naturalisation, registration or otherwise voluntarily acquires, or has at any time between January 26, 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 :Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a citizen of India who, during any war in which India maybe engaged, voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, until the Central Government otherwise directs. (2) 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. Section 9(1) provides for situations wherein citizenship of an Indian citizen stands terminated, one such situation being upon acquisition of the citizenship of another country. If an Indian citizen acquired citizenship of another country that by itself without anything more would result in the termination of his citizenship of India. Sub-section (2) provides for the forum having jurisdiction to determine the contention as to whether, when and how a person had acquired citizenship of another country and thereby the consequence of termination of Indian citizenship ensued. If such a contention were to arise in any proceeding, it shall be dealt with by the prescribed authority. Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules framed under the Act prescribes the Central Government to be the exclusive authority competent to determine whether citizenship of another country is acquired and thereby the person claiming to be Indian citizen has ceased to be one. 6. The question is whether once exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the Central Government to determine the issue that may arise under sub-section (2) of Section 9, the civil court will have jurisdiction to decide the same. In Abida Khatoon case (AIR 1963 All 260 : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 724), which the learned Single Judge followed while deciding the appeal against which the present appeal is filed, the Allahabad High Court had taken the view that if the suit is instituted prior to the enactment and enforcement of the Citizenship Act, 1955 the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the contention whether citizenship of an Indian citizen stood terminated on account of his acquisition of citizenship of another country, and the jurisdiction of the civil court in view of the provision contained in Section 9(2) would not be ousted and the civil court will continue to have jurisdiction to determine the issue. The learned Single Judge negatived the contention that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue following the decision in Abida Khatoon case (AIR 1963 All 260 : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 724). 7. In Shah Mohammad case ((1969) 3 SCR 1006 : (1969) 1 SCC 771 ), this Court specifically overruled the decision in Abida Khatoon case (AIR 1963 All 260 : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 724). This Court specifically held that from the amplitude of the language employed in Section 9, the legislative intention has been made clear that all cases which come up for determination where an Indian citizen has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign country after the commencement of the Constitution, that is after January 26, 1950 and before the commencement of the Act i.e. December 30, 1955 have to be dealt with and decided in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 9(2) of the Act. This Court specifically held that civil court will have no jurisdiction to decide the issue arising in a suit instituted before the commencement of the Act as the Central Government alone has been constituted the exclusive forum for the same. This legal position is unquestioned and unquestionable. Therefore the decision of the High Court is wholly unsustainable, and both the appeals will have to be allowed. 8. Mr Mahajan appearing in one of the two appeals urged that the Court should retain the suits and direct the Central Government to decide the question : whether the respondents had acquired that citizenship of another country i.e. Pakistan and thereby their Indian citizenship stood terminated and till then they should not be deported. We would have been happy to accede to this contention but let it be made very clear that the law in this behalf has been laid down way back in 1969. The decision in Shah Mohammad case ((1969) 3 SCR 1006 : (1969) 1 SCC 771 ) which specifically overruled the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Abida Khatoon case (AIR 1963 All 260 : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 724) was specifically brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge hearing the second appeal and yet for reasons wholly un-understandable and entirely unsustainable, the learned Judge declined to apply the law which was binding on him. At any rate, the appellants had knowledge of the legal position from 1969 and it was for them to have taken recourse to appropriate proceeding by moving the Central Government to get the relief. The suit is pending for 30 years and it is not possible therefore, to accede to the request of Mr Mahajan.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]This Court specifically held that from the amplitude of the language employed in Section 9, the legislative intention has been made clear that all cases which come up for determination where an Indian citizen has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign country after the commencement of the Constitution, that is after January 26, 1950 and before the commencement of the Act i.e. December 30, 1955 have to be dealt with and decided in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 9(2) of the Act. This Court specifically held that civil court will have no jurisdiction to decide the issue arising in a suit instituted before the commencement of the Act as the Central Government alone has been constituted the exclusive forum for the same. This legal position is unquestioned and unquestionable. Therefore the decision of the High Court is wholly unsustainable, and both the appeals will have to be allowed8. Mr Mahajan appearing in one of the two appeals urged that the Court should retain the suits and direct the Central Government to decide the question : whether the respondents had acquired that citizenship of another country i.e. Pakistan and thereby their Indian citizenship stood terminated and till then they should not be deported. We would have been happy to accede to this contention but let it be made very clear that the law in this behalf has been laid down way back in 1969. The decision in Shah Mohammad case ((1969) 3 SCR 1006   : (1969) 1 SCC 771  ) which specifically overruled the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Abida Khatoon case (AIR 1963 All 260   : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 724) was specifically brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge hearing the second appeal and yet for reasons whollye and entirely unsustainable, the learned Judge declined to apply the law which was binding on him. At any rate, the appellants had knowledge of the legal position from 1969 and it was for them to have taken recourse to appropriate proceeding by moving the Central Government to get the relief. The suit is pending for 30 years and it is not possible therefore, to accede to the request of Mr Mahajan.