BHAGWATI PRASAD DIXIT 'GHOREWALA' versus RAJEEV GANDHI

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 823 · Decided: 25-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

823 
BHAGWATI PRASAD DIDT 'GHOREWALA' 
v. 
RAJEEV GANDHI 
APRIL 25, 1986. 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: ss. 80 & 100 -
Election Petition -
Dismissal of -
For failure to disclose 
cause of action - When arises. 
Citizenship Act, 1955/Citizenship Rules, 1956; s.9 (2) 
r. 30 - Citizenship - Determination of - Whether High Court in 
an election petition has jurisdiction. 
Constitution of India, Art. 102(l)(a): Membership of 
Parliament - Whether an office of profit under the Government. 
The appellant and the respondent were candidates for the: 
Amethi 
Parliamentary 
Constituency 
at 
the 
last 
general 
election. The respondent was declared elected. The appellant 
by a petition filed before the High Court assailed the 
election of the respondent contending: 
(l) that he was disqualified under Art. 102(l)(d) of the 
Constitution to be a candidate, because he had ceased to be an 
Indian citizen under s. 9 of the Citizenship Act for by virtue 
of his marriage to an Italian lady and acquisition of property 
in Italy he ID.1st be deemed to have voluntarily acquired the 
citizenship of that country, 
(2) that by reason of his being a Member of Parliament and 
drawing salary, he was disqualified for being chosen as a 
Member of Parliament since he was holding an office of profit 
within the meaning of Art. 102(l)(a) of the Constitution at 
the time of the election, and (3) that since the Chief 
Election Com:Lssioner could not be retooved from his office 
except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of 
the Supreme 
Court, 
as 
provided in Art. 
324(5) of the 
Constitution, no person who was not eligible to be appointed 
as a Judge of the Supreme Court could be appoi.nted as the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 2 s.c.R. 
Chief Election Colllllissioner, 
and consequently the Chief 
Election 
Colllllissioner, 
who 
was 
functioning, 
being 
not~
qualified to hold the post, the elections held throughout the 
country, including that of the respondent, were void. 
The High Court took the view that notwithstanding the 
statutory bar contained in s. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 
1955 it had jurisdiction to decide the question whether a 
candidate had ceased to be an Indian citizen, since by virtue1 
of Art. 329 of the Constitution all questions arising in an\ 
election petition filed under the Representation of the People 
Act were exclusively tr1.able in an election petition. It, 
however, dismissed the election petition holding that it did 
not disclose any cause of action for setting aside the ~
election of the returned candidate. 
~
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l.(i) Whatever may be the proceeding in which the 
question of loss of citizenship of a person arises for 
consideration, the decision in that proceeding on the said 
question should depend upon the decision of the authority 
constituted for determining that question under s. 9(2) of the 
Citizenship Act, 1955. [836 C-D] 
j.. ..
(ii) By virtue of r. 30 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956 
which have been framed under the Act, the Central Government 
has been appointed as the authority to decide the question of 
voluntary acquisition of citizenship of a foreign country 
arising under s.9(2). 
No other court or authority has,+.-
therefore, the power to decide the question as to wjlether, 
when or how an Indian citizen has acquired the citizenship of 
another country. [832 C-E] 
-~ 
(iii) Even where the question whether a person is 
qualified to be chosen as a Member of the Lok Sabha arises in 
an election petition the High Court cannot proceed to decide 
the question of loss of citizenship of the candidate concerned 
notwithstanding the mandate of Art. 329 of the Constitution 
that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House ..J-
of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question 1 
except by an election petition. [832 E 
] 
B.P. DIXIT v. RAJEEV GANDHI 
825 
(iv) When once a person is admitted or held to be a 
citizen of India, unless there is a decision of the Central 
Government under s. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act that he has 
acquired the citizenship of a foreign country, he should be 
presumed to be an Indian citizen. Sub-section (2) of s. 9 
purports to lay down that the right of citizenship of the 
person who is admittedly an Indian citizen should not be 
exposed to attack in all forums in the country, but should be 
decided 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.