MOHD. AYUB KHAN versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MADRAS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 884 · Decided: 05-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 presump-
tion of voluntary acquisition of citizenship is to be raised from the obtain-
ing 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 quasi-
judicial 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. Sec-
tion (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 Govern-
ment 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. 

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