MR. LOUIS DE RAEDT & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 149 · Decided: 24-07-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MR. LOUIS DE RAEDT & ORS. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
~-
JULY 24, 1991 
J 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of india, 1950: Article 5-'domicile'-Meaning of-
Domicile of origin and domicile of choice-difference between-
Domicile of choice-How acquired-Intention to stay permanently-
Burden of proof. 
-~ 
c 
" 
Articles 19( l)(e) and 21-Foreigner not acquiring Indian citizen-
ship-Not entitled to fundamental right under Article 19( l)(e)-Funda-
mental right under Article 21 available-Right of Government to expel 
such persons-Whether absolute and unrestricted. 
Foreigners Act, I946: Section 3-expulsion of foreigner from 
D 
India on his failure to acquire Indian citizenship-Right of Government 
of India-Whether absolute and unrestricted-Decision to deport taken 
~ 
by the competent authority, the Central Government-Superintendent 
of Police merely executed the order-Hence not vitiated. 
\' 
Citizenhip Act, 1955: Section 6 and third Schedule--Citizenship 
E 
' 
-Acquiring of-Domicile by choice-Intention to permanently stay in 
India-Burden of proof-Staying in India with foreign passports with 
residential permits renewed from time to time-Whether establishes 
animus manendi-Whether eniitled to citizenship. 
Private International Law: Foreigner staying in India on Residen-
F 
tial permits renewed from time to time-Indian citizenship not acquired 
-Right of Central Government to expel. 
Administrative Law: Principles of Natural Justice~Hearing-
Expulsion of foreigner not acquiring Indian citizenship-Opportunity 
of hearing-No hard and fast rule-Absence of material in support of G 
his claim-Non affording of opportunity before passing the expulsion 
' 
order-Whether vitiated. 
II" 
The Petitioners, foreign nationals engaged in Christian missio-
nary work have been staying in India continuously for a long time since 
pre-independence period. They continued to stay on the basis of resi-
H 
149 
A 
B 
150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1991] 3 S.C.R. 
dential permits renewed from time to time. In 1985 an order was passed 
asking them to leave the country and they made representations to the 
authorities, followed by further representations in 1986 for naturalisa-
tion/further extension of stay. However by order dated 8. 7 .1987 their 
request was rejected and they were asked to leave the country by 31si 
July, 1987. The petitioners challenged the said order in the writ peti-
tions filed before this Court. 
It was contended by the petitioners that since they were staying in 
this country for a period of more than five years immediately preceding 
the commencement of the Constitution, they should be held to have duly 
acquired Indian citizenship on the basis of Article S(e) of the Constitu' 
C tion of India; that their continuous stay in India has established their 
case of domicile in India which cannot be rejected merely because they 
were holding foreign passports; that proceedings against them should 
have been initiated under section 9 of the Foreigners Act enabling them 
to defend their case; that they were denied hearing; and that in no event 
the Superintendent of Police who had signed the deportation order was 
D authorised to do so. 
Dismissing the Writ Petitions, this Court, 
HELD: I. Every person must have a personal law, and accord-
ingly every one must have a domicile. He receives at birth a domicile of 
E origin which remains his domicile, wherever he goes, unless and until 
he acquires a new domicile. The new domicile, acquired subsequently, 
is generally called a domicile of choice. The domicile of origin is 
received by operation of law at birth and for acquisition of a domicile of 
choice one of the necessary conditions is the intention to remain there 
'-'
permanently. The domicile of origin is retained and cannot be divested 
F until the acquisition of the domicile of choice. By merely leaving his 
country, even permanently, one will not, in the eye of law, lose his 
domicile until he acquires a new one. This proposition that the domicile 
of origin is retained until the acquisition of a domicile of choice is well 
established and does not admit of any exception. I 1560-F I 
G 
Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain, [1955] I SCR 697, relied 
on. 
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 8, para 421, 
referred to. 
H 
2. One of the necessary conditions mentioned in Article 5 of the 
.... .L 
\~ 
~-
L.b. RAEDT v. U.0.1 
15i 
Consiitlltioit is iliat the person concerned must be having hi

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