SMT. SHANNO DEVI versus MANGAL SAIN

Citation: [1961] 1 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 07-09-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

576 
SUPRE:\IE COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
SMT. SHANNO DEVI 
v. 
MANGAL SAIK 
(S. K. DAS, M. HJDAYATULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA, 
J.C. SHAH an<l :;'\, R.AJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Migration to India--Citizenship, claim for-fotention of resi-
di11g pmnanently-Eleclion dispute-" Migrated lo the territory of 
India", 
"Ordi11arily resident", meaning of -
Co'lstitution of 
India, Art. 6. 
The respondent was the successful candidate at the general 
election held tn ~larch, 1957, for the Punjab Legislative Assem-
bly. 
The appellant who was one of the unsuccessful candiclatcs, 
filed an election petition and challeng"d the validity of the res-
pondent's election on the grounds, inter alia, that the latter was 
not a citizen of India an<l was, therefore, not qualified to stand 
for election. 
It was fouw) that he was born of Indian parents 
sometime in 1927 in India as defined in the Government of India 
Act, l9J5, in a village which since August 15, 1947, became part 
of Pakistan, that in 1944 he had moved from his home district 
to Jullunder in what is now the territory of India, and that 
after August 15, 1947, he definitely mad" up his mind to settle 
in India \\'ith the intr!nlion of residing thPre permanently. There 
was sornc evidence to shO\\' that he \Vent to Burma in January, 
1950, and made un!'uccessful atten1pts to secure permission from 
the Government of Ilurma to stay there permanently. The 
question was whether the respondent could be deemed to be a 
citizen of India within the meaning of Art. 6 of the Constitution 
of India. 
Held: (1) that the expression "migrated to the territory of 
India" in Art. 6 of the Constitution means " migrated at any 
time before the commencement of the Constitution to a place 
now in the territory of India", 
(2) 
that in Art. 6 the words "migrated to the territory 
of India" mean" come to the territory of India with the inten-
tion of residing there permanently ". 
(3) 
that where a person moves from one country lo an-
other and has, at the time of mo\·ing, a intention to remain in 
the country where he moved only temporarily, but later on 
forms the intention of residing there permanently, he should be 
held in Jaw to have migrated to that country at the later point 
of time. 
' 
(4) 
that for applying the test of being "ordmarily resi-
dent in the territory of India since the date of his migration" 
in Art. 6(b)(i), what is necessary to be st:own is that during the 
period begmning with the date on which migration became 
• 
._, 
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
577 
complete and ending with November i6, 1949, as a whole, . the 
person has been "ordinarily resident in the territory of India " 
Whether he was not in India on January 26, 1950, or whether 
he formed an intention of taking up his permanent residence 
in Burma when he left for that place in January, 1950, was not 
relevant. 
· 
(5) That the words "ordinarily resident" in the Consti-
tution mean "resident during this period without any serious 
break ". It is not n.ecessary that for every day of this period 
the person should have resided in Ind\a. 
(6) 
that the respondent satisfied the requirements of 
Art. 6 of the Constitution and that his claim to be deemed a 
citizen of India must be upheld. 
CIVIL APPELLATE ·JURISDICTION: Civil 
Appeal 
No. 247 of 1960. 
Appeal from the judgment and oraer dated October 
3, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in First Appeal 
from Order No. 131 of 1958. 
A: V. Viswanatha Sastri and Naunit Lal, fot the 
appellant .. 
U. M. Trivedi and Ganpat Rai, for the_ respondent. 
1960. ·September 7. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
Shanno D~Vi 
v. 
M angal Sain 
DAS GUPTA J.-Wbat do the words "has migrated 
D4s Gwpta J. 
to the territory of India " in Art. 6 of the Constitu-
tion mean? That is the main question in this appeal. 
The appellant, Shanno Devi, was one o( the unsucces-
sful candidates at the general election held in March 
1957 for the Punjab Legislative Assembly. The respon-
dent, Mangal Sain, was the successful candidate. The 
nomination papers of these and other candidates 
which were scrutinised on February 1, 1957, were 
·accepted on the same date. The voting took place on 
March 12, and after counting of votes on March 14, . 
1957, the respondent, Mangal Sain was declared duly 
elected. On March 27, 1957, the appellant filed an 
election petition and challenged the respondent's elec- . 
tion on various g'.ounds, the prin.cipal groun4 . being 
that the Returnmg Officer had i

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