STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS. versus SHAH MOHAMMAD & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 1006 · Decided: 13-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ORS. 
v. 
SHAH MOHAMMAD & ANR. 
March 13, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVBR, JJ.J 
Indian Citizenship Act 57 of )955, s. 9 and Citizenship Rules, 1956, 
r. 30--ApplioabUity of provisions to suit pending when Act cc;·me into 
fotce. 
Respondent No. I was born in undivided India on July 3, 1934. 
He 
went to Pakistan in October 1950. 
In 1953 he obtained a visa from the 
Indian High Commission in Pakistan and came to India on July 22, 1953. 
After the expiry of his pe'riod of stay he sought permanent settlement in 
India. On May 6. J 955 he filed a suit claiming that he was a minor when 
he went on a trip to Pakistan and had not ceased to be an Indian citizen. 
He sought a permanent injunction restraining the Union of India and 
other authorities from deporting him. 
The Munsif who tried the suit 
held that respondent No. I had ceased to _he an Indian citizen, and dis-
missed the suit. 
The 
Distric~ Judge in first appeal held that being a 
minor whose fathe'.r was in Jndia respondent no. 1 could not by leaving 
for Pakistan. lose ·his Indian nationality. In second appeal the High Court 
of Allahabad remanded the case to the. first appellate court to determine 
the question whether by having spent one year in Pakistan after attainin& 
majority respondent no. I had acquired the citizenship of Pakistan. The 
High Court rejected the contention on behalf of the State that in view 
of s. 9(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act 1955 which came into force on 
December 30, 1955 and Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules made under the 
Act. the question whether respondent no. 1 was a citizen of India or not 
could only be decided by the Central Government. 
In taking this view 
the High Court relied on the decision in Abida Khatoon's dase in which 
a single Judge of that court had held that s. 9 of the Citizenship Act 1955 
was not retrospective and· could not take away the vested right of a citizen 
who had already filed a suit to have his claim for citizenship decided by 
a court. The first appellate court gave afte'r remand n finding favourable 
to respondent no. 1 and on receipt of this finding the High Court dis-
missed the State's appeal. 
The State then appealed to this Court. The 
questions that tell for consideration were: (i) whether s. 9 of the Act 
would apply to a suit pending on the date when the Act came into force: 
(ii) whether in view of the fact that the procedure established bv law be-
fore the dommencement of the Act allowed the question as to the acqui-
sition of the citizenshio of anothe'r cOuntry to be determined by courts, 
there was hv giving retrospective operation to s. 9, a violation of the 
guarantee of personal liberty under Art. 21. 
HELD: (i) The language of sub-s. (!) of s. 9 is clear and unequivo-
czi.I and leaves no room for doubt that it would cover all cases where an 
Indian citizen has acquired foreign nationality between. Jan~ary 26. 19~0 
and its commencement or where he acquires such nationahtv 
after tts 
commencement. The \Vords "or ha·s at anv time b~tween t~e 26th Ja.n~ary 
1950 and the commencement of the Aqt. voluntarily acqu1.red the citizen-
ship of a.Dotber country" would become almost red~ndant if <?nly prespec-
tive operation is given to s. 9 (I ) of the Act. 
Th18 
accol'dmg to the 
settled rules of interpretation cannot be done, [1010 F-Gl 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
U.P. STATE v. SHAH MOHAMMAD 
1007 
(ii l. The Act has been enacted under the powers of the Parliament 
preserved by Art. 11 in express terms and a law made by Parliament can-
not, as held in Jzhar Ahmed's case be impeached on the ground that it is 
inconsistent with the provisions contained in other Articles in Part II of 
the Constitution. 
The Parliament had also legislative competenoe under 
Entry 17. List I of Seventh Schedule. It could thus make a provision about 
the forum where the question as to whether a person had acquired citizen-
ship of another country could be determined and this is what has been 
done by r. 30. [1011 B-DJ 
The cases that would ordinarily arise about loss of Indian citizemhip 
by acquisition of forei'!ll citizenship would be of three kinds : (I) Indian 
citizem who voluntarily acquired citizenshio of a foreign State prior to 
the commencement of the Constitution; (2) Indian citizens who volun-
tarily acquired the ditizemhip of another State or ~ountry between January 
26, 1950 and December 30, 1955 i.e. the date of commencement of the 
Act, and

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