LexGANGADHAR YESHWANT BHANDARE versus ERASMO DE JESUS SEQUIRIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H GANGADHAR YESHWANT BHANDARE v. ERASMO DE JESUS SEQUIRIA February 4, 1975 [H. R. KHANNA;, P. N. EHAGWATI AND R. s. SARiCARIA, JJ.] 425 Goa, Vaman and. Diu Citizenship Order, 1%2';..c/, )A..:.....Pi;sspol't Issued by a foreign coulltry. to be surrendered liefo,re a·cert11in.date.,-Gqvermnent specifically· asked a citizen not to surrender foreign pas8port....;..Seryic~s of cltl:de1.1. used In .a top secret mission:--Wllether retmtton of .foreig11 passPort deprlvt4· lu'm of Indian Citizenship · · Clause (2) of the Go~, Daman and.Diu.(Citizcnsliip) ·o~der, 1962 ~tall~ tlmt every person who or either of whose pa~ents · WLtS borR befurc the 20th <I&)' of Db;ember, 1961 in the territories now cil'ml!l'i'Sed in the' union territoii ·qf · Ooa, Daman and Diu shall be deemed- to ·h,iive beeom\ a. citlr.en of Iadf&:p1': that day. The proviso to that clause says .'thai,· 'any· SQCh pe~ii shall not lie. deemed to have become 11 citizen of India; ·as ·aforesaid if within· one· month from ihe date of publication of the order that person makes a .declaratioil'in writing that he chooses to retain the citiz.enship or nationality' '\Vl'riCh · h.e· ·Ji$4· immediately before the 20th day of December, 1961. In Decenttier. 19"62 clii!,tile (3A) was .inserted in Schedule 3 to the CitizeQship Rules which. states that .where. a person who has be~ome an Indian citizen by virtue of 'the· 1!162 .. CitlZensbip Order holds a passport issued by the Government of any ,other. Country·~ fact that he has not surrende'fed the said passport on. or befotj:I January' 19; 1963. shaU be conclusive proof' of ms having volwitarily acquired· the t:itizedship of• that countrv before that date. . ~ In . his . eloction petition the appellant alleged ~at the resj)Gndent .C:p(lse~. io maintain his Portuguese nationality, aild citizeashii;I by making a deClaration in writing on April 27, 1962. Thereal'fer, he proceeded. on foreign travel as an·alie.n on the basis of the. Portuguese passport issued to him by the fm:mer Portli~e8c administra:tion. which ·vas renewed upto July 17, 1964 ·in ..London: It was further alleged that the respondent obtained his alien residential• ~nnit in India and that he deliberately failed to surrender his Portuguese passport ~fore January 19,1963 as required by cl. 3A 'of the Amending Rules; 1962 .. It 'was also alleged that the communic<ttion of the. Goa administration that' the respon- dent bad prima facie become a citizen of I9dia by- virtue of the Cltiienship· Order was not correct and contrary to the doeumentary evideote: The Judicial Commissioner held (i) that the respondent-was entru,.5ted·wilh a secret mission on ·behalf of . the Government of India and it was ia th8* connection that he was made to sign the declaration dated April '9J.7; 1962 aftd' that the declaration Wl\S not made voluntarily; (ii) that the renewal· of tile Portuguese passport did not imply loss of Indian citiz.ensl;tip; ·(iii) tl\at the· ittenc tion of the Portuguese passport .after January 19, 1963 was -due' to l::ooipeUiiig. reasons and that the Government of India must be deemed to have .glvon lts decision that llie respondent was a11. Indian .citizen. . · Dismissing ttl" .appeal to this Court. HELD : (I) According to the Special Adviser to the Military Governor •lfho later became Special Adviser to the Lt. Governor, the · declaration of the respondent da!.ed April·. 27, 1962 that he cho,se to retain the Po_i·tuj\uese. citizenship and nati.onality ~as sig·n~d by him <?.nly by way 'Of. formahty 1n view of the fact that the SpeC1al Adviser had decided tO uso the respondent in a tep secret matter relating to the security of India ... The -respon- dent was involved with a J>o11ug11ese lady and that fact provided a cover fOr carrying out the' assignment. The respondent retained his Portuguese· passport and obtained residential permits to stay in Goa as a foreigner. till January, .1964 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 3 s.c.R. :at the instance of the Spe:ial Adviser so that he could carry out the assignment entrusted to him. He had gone abroad in 1963 in connection With the assignment on a Portugu.ese pai;sport under the instructions of the Special Adviser. The respondent renewed the Portuguese passport in London under instructions of the Special Adviser. On respondent's return he was asked by the Special Adviser to retain his passport till such time as it was deci
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.