LexLAL BABU HUSSEIN AND ORS. versus ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
LAL BABU HUSSEIN AND ORS. v. ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER AND ORS. ·FEBRUARY 6, 1995 (A.M. AHMADI, CJ., N.P. SINGH AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.) A B Constitution of India-Arts. 5 to 7, 325-Citizenship Act, 1955-R.epre- sentation of People Act, 1950--Sections 16, 2~egistration of Electors Rules C 1960--Rule 21A-Electoral Rolls-Revision oHeletion of names already on roll~rocedure for removal-Guidelines issued. Citizenship Act, 195~Section 9-Citizenship Rules, 1966-Termina- tion of citizenship-l'rocedure for. The Election Commission by an order dated 21-8-1992 issued a directive empowering Collectors of all Districts in India to determine if any person was or was not a foreigner. Enumerators were appointed and D the information collected by the enumerators had to be consolidated and furnished to the Collectors who were to get the same verified through the police/intelligence agencies or the like and then decide . the question E whether the person or persons concerned were citizens of India. The Electoral Registration Officers. were then expected to prepare a draft electoral roll on the basis thereof and publish it inviting objections, if any. The Electoral Registration Officer was to consider the request for in- clusion of his name in the roll and decide thereon. Another directive da~ F 9-9-1994 was issued empowering the Electoral Registration Office~ to identity and declare the names of foreign nationals and delete their names from the electoral roll. Pursuant to these directives, extensive search was undertaken in police stations of Bombay and Delhi. Letters were issued by the police to about 1.67 lakh persons calling upon them t~ produce birth certificates, Indian passports, if any, citizenship certificates and/or ex- G tracts of entry made in the register of citizenship. Requests for extension of time were refused. Except the documents stated, no other proof was entertained. Onus of proof was on the addressee to prove that they were Indian citizens and ordinary residents of the constituency. The police identified the areas having substantial presence of foreign nationals. The H 877 878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R. A Electoral Registration Officer placed implicit reliance on the said docu- ment and raised a presumption in regard to its correctness. The notices · issued to the persons suspected to be foreigners carried a statement to the effect that the addressee was or was not a citizen of India. Claims were rejected solely on the report of the police without furnishing copies. Writ B petitions came to be filed challenging the police action. Several <;oncessions were made by the Advocate General. It was clarified that in all letters issued in future such a statement will not be printed or typed on the reverse of the notice; that the documents in support of proof of citizenship will not be confined to those specified. The petition was dismissed on the basis of these concessions. Hence this appeal. c Disposing of the matter, this Court HELD : 1.1. Proceedings are quashed and the Election Commission is directed, if so desired to initiate fresh proceedings by issuance of a notice under the relevant provision disclosing the material on the basis whereof D he had reason to. suspect that the person concerned was not a citizen of India. [894-H] 1.2. If any person whose citizenship was suspected was shown to have been included in the immediately preceding electoral roll, the Electoral E Registration Officer or any other officer inquiring into the matter. shall bear in mind that the entire gamut for inclusion of the name in the electoral roll must have been undertaken and hence adequate probative value be attached to that factum before issuance of notice and in sub- sequent proceedings. [895-A] F 1.3. The question whether a person is a foreigner is a question of fact wldch would require careful scrutiny of evidence since the enquiry is quasi-judicial in character. This question has to be determined by the Central Government. The enquiry being quasi-judicial, the Officer holding the enquiry must entertain all such evidence, the concerned affected person may like to tender evidence and disclose all such material on which he G proposes to place reliance. The concerned person must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The officer must apply his mlnd independently to the material placed before him and without being influenced by ex- traneous
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.