SYED KHAWAJA MOINUDDIN versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 401 · Decided: 18-01-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
II 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
SYED KHAWAJA MOINUDDIN 
'" 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. 
December 14, 1966 and 
January 18, 1967 
[M. 
HIDAYATULLAH, V. 
BHARGAVA 
AND 
G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
401 
('itizenship Rules, 1956, Schedule 111, para 3-When detailed enquiry 
011 the acquisi;/011 of foreign citizenship necessary. 
The appellant who was born in India left for Pakistan in 1951 at the 
age of 13. He stayed there till 1955, when he came to India as a Pakistani 
citizen with a Pakistani passport. 
In 1963, he was deported to Pakistan. 
Jn 1964, he again came to India with a Pakistani passport. 
In order to 
determine his nationality for the purpose of deporting him, the Govcrn-
rnent of India issued notice to him to n1ake representations, if .any. 
'fhc 
appellant mac!> two representations, and though in both of them he ucged 
that he had not voluntarily acquired the citizenship· of Pakistan, he did 
not raise any plea, at any stage, that he had not voluntarily obtained the 
passport on the two occasions he came to India, or, that he was compelled 
to apply for Pakistani passports. There was no plea that he tried to obtain 
a permit for ten1porary stay when going to Pakistan. nor was there any 
suggestion that he tried to obtain a repatriation certificate which he couh.J. 
have obtained if he had retained his Indian citizenship. The Governn1ent 
of India considered the representations and passed an ardor that he had 
,-oluntariJy acquired Paki~tani citizenship, under s. 9(2) of the Citizen~hip 
Act, 1955. 
HELD: The o'der did not suffer from any infirmity. 
On the representations made by the appellant the Government was not 
called upon to make any detailed enquiry, when the provisions of para 
3 of Schedule lil of the Citizenship Rules, namely, that the authority must 
regard obtaining of a foreign. passport on a particular date as conclusive 
proof that the Indian citizen had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of 
another country hefore that date, were clearly applicable. It was only 
\Vhen a plea was raised that a citizen had not voluntarily obtained the pass-
nort that he should he afforded an opportunity to prove that fact. [404 
F-H] 
f..,folid. Ayub Khan V. C'on11nissiofl£'( of Police, Madras, rt965] 2. S.C.R. 
884, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No· 
237 of 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
October 7, 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal 
Misc. Petition No. 1621 of 1966. 
Yerramilli Satyanarayana and K. R. Sharma, for the appel-
H 
!ant. 
B. Sen and R. N. Sachthe)', for respondent No. I. 
T. V. R. Tatachari, for respondents Nos. 2--4. 
MI Su:,,CI/67 ---12 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPO&TS 
[ 1967] 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bharga»a, .I. 
In this appeal, by special lea,·e, we have al-
ready passed lhe order on 14th December, 1966, and we now 
indicate our reasons for that order. 
The appellant was born on April 6, 1938, at Suryapet in Nal-
gonda District, Andhra Pradesh, and was educated and brought 
up there until the year 1951. 
His father died in 1947. 
After the 
partition of India and the enforcement of the Constitution, the 
appellant, in August 1951, left for Pakistan where he stayed until 
1955. 
In 1955, he returned to India on a passport obtained from 
the Pakistan Government as a Pakistani citizen with a visa from 
the Indian Government. 
Even after the expiry of the visa, he 
continued to stay in India, but in August, 1963, he was deported 
to Pakistan. 
He came again to India with a passport dated 4th 
December, 1963 issued by the Pakistan Government with a visa 
from the Indian High Commission dated 20th January, 1964. 
He 
arrived in India on 5th February, 1964. 
Subsequently, the ques-
tion of deportation of the appellant by the. Indian Government 
arose. and thereupon, the appellant filed a petition under Art. 
226 of the Constitution challenging the order of deportation made 
hy the Government of India. The petition was allowed hy the 
High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the order of deportation was 
quashed on the ground that there had been nc determination that 
the appellant had acquired Pakistani citizenship under s. 9 of the 
Citizenship Act by the Indian Government. Thereafter, 
the 
Government took up the question of determinin_; the nationality 
of the appellant, and a notice was issued to the appellant on 19th 
March, 1965 through the Government of Andhra Pradesh asking 
the appellant, within one m

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