Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: citizenship constitution of india Sorted by: old Court: gujarat Page 1 of about 33 results (0.041 seconds)

Oct 13 1960 (HC)

Bhaktiarkhan Khwaja Nausadkhan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1961Guj109; (1961)GLR57

..... force or compulsion is irrelevant. it is nobody's case that he got himself registered for the purpose of renouncing his citizenship of india. he, therefore, continued to be a citizen of india as laid down in arts. 5 and 10 of the constitution until september 1953 when he was deported. it is not in dispute that when he went to pakistan he did ..... another country, shall upon such acquisition or as the case may be, suchcommencement, cease to be a citizen of india. ac-cording to the respondents, the appellant in this case acquired the citizenship of pakistan before the act came into operation, but, after the constitution came into force. sub-sections (2), of section9 then provides that if any question arises as to whether ..... the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide the question whether a person has lost his citizenship by acquiring the citizenship of another country. as i have pointed out, article 10 of the; constitution categorically lays down that every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of india shall continue to be a citizen subject to the provisions of any law that ..... was in error who on a mere consideration of article 5 of the constitution has held that the appellant was not a citizen of india. 9. it was, however contended by mr. nanavati that appellant had after his deportation to pakistan acquired citizenship of that country and thereby lost is citizenship of this country. he-based this argument upon the fact that alter the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1961 (HC)

State Vs. Abdul Suttar Haji Ibrahim Patel

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1963Guj226; 1963CriLJ265; (1963)0GLR1073

..... india and -(a) who was born in the territory of india; or (b) either of whose parents was born in the ..... parliament. but on the question as to who is a citizen of india on the date of the constitution, the constitution is the sole law. the citizenship act refers to citizenship after the commencement of the constitution and on the question as to who is a citizen of india on the date of the constitution, we have to read for purposes of this appeal articles 5, 7 ..... derogate from the power of parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship'.article 10 of the constitution provides that every person who is deemed to be a citizen of india under the constitution shall continue to be such citizen, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made ..... , therefore, on the respondent to prove that he was a citizen of india on 13-10-1957. at this stage, it is necessary to turn to the relevant provisions m the constitution of india and the citizenship act referring to citizenship. article 3 of the constitution of india provides that -'at the commencement of this constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1963 (HC)

Habatullah Haji Fazale HussaIn Vs. the State

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1964Guj128; 1964CriLJ24; (1964)0GLR273

..... question does not survive in view of our conclusion on the question of migration. if petitioner had succeeded in proving that he had become a citizen of india under the constitution, the question whether his citizenship has or has not been terminated by the central government would have been material.20. the fourth point raised by mr. nanavaty has also no substance. it ..... . the main contention of the and respondent is that although the case of the petitioner fell directly within the purview of article 5 of the constitution of india, the petitioner still did not acquire citizenship of india because his case, directly fell within the purview of article 7. that article is as follows:'notwithstanding anything in articles 5 and 6, a person who has ..... for us to decide that question in the present petition. therefore, arguments were addressed on the subject of the petitioner having acquired the citizenship of india under the constitution on the basis that the petitioner had, in fact, departed from india on the 13th of february, 1948, in such a way that normally he would lose his domicile. but, the contention of the ..... of his father's sister, and that, therefore, the case of petitioners did not fall within the purview of article 7 of the constitution of india; (3) that petitioner remains a citizen of india under article 5 of the constitution inasmuch as no order, depriving him of his citizenship, has been passed by the central government under section 9, sub-section (2) of the indian .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1993 (HC)

Sejal Vikrambhai Patel and Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1993Guj150; (1993)1GLR602

..... arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. mr. dave further submitted that the third respondent has rightly observed in the impugned order that the concept of dual citizenship has not been accepted either under the constitution of india or under the citizenship act. mr. dave made a statement under the instructions of the third respondent that if the petitioner will produce necessary certificate in accordance with ..... submitted that if the interpretation of rule 1.4 put forward by the respondent authorities is accepted, the rule would be ultra vires the citizenship act, 1955 as also articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of india being arbitrary and unreasonable. mr. desai also submitted that the impugned action requires to be set aside on the ground that the authorities have ..... to make for the purpose of granting or refusing admission to the applicant, mr. desai submitted that looking to the provisions of the constitution as well as the citizenship act, the petitioner can be said to be a citizen of india and, therefore, is entitled to get admission on that basis. mr. desai, therefore, prayed that the petition requires to be ..... 9 of the act. (xi) the direction of the authority that the petitioner should make application for certificate of acquisition of citizenship is illegal, unreasonable dehors the act and rules and violative of articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of india. 23. a similar question arose before the supreme court in shah mohammad's case 0065/1969 : [1969]3scr1006 (supra). .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1961 (HC)

Yusuf Ibrahim Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1962Guj194; (1962)0GLR85

..... application for the pakistani passport as also his declaration while obtaining visa 'c' from the office of the high commissioner of india in pakistan would constitute prima facie evidence of his having renounced his citizenship of india and his having acquired the citizenship of pakistan. it is true that in a case where it is alleged by the state government that i a person ..... was final and conclusive, establishing renunciation on his part of the citizenship of india. but, it is the case of the learned government pleader that though the petitioner was a citizen of this country on the date when the constitution came into force he subsequently renounced the indian citizenship and acquired the citizenship of pakistan, it would be the central government, as a tribunal ..... and was also educated there. in view of that statement it is quite clear that the petitioner was, by virtue of article 5 of the constitution, a citizen of india at the time of the commencement of the constitution.6. it was, however, urged by the learned government pleader that there was a dispute between the parties as to when exactly the petitioner ..... under section 9(2) of the citizenship act of 1955, which would have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 1962 (HC)

Abdul Gafar Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1963Guj48; (1963)0GLR247

..... in the light of the facts end circumstances of that case. there the petitioner was born at godhra, of parents who also were born in india and had a domicile in india at the commencement of the constitution. he was, therefore, a citizen under article 5. we held in that case that article 7 did not apply to him as he had not ..... ground of migration as contemplated by article 7. we also held that as there was no order passed by the central government to the effect that he had lost his citizenship by having been in pakistan or on his having obtained a pakistani passport, the order of deportation passed against him was not a valid order and was premature. the facts ..... distinction between the two questions (1) whither a person is an indian citizen or a foreigner and (2) whether a person having once been an indian citizen has renounced that citizenship and acquired a foreign nationality. they held that the first question was not one which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the central government to decide and, therefore, a civil ..... jurisdiction to determine it. the question therefore whether the petitioner in this case is a foreigner or a citizen of india is within the jurisdiction of a civil court and not the central government by virtue of section 9 of the citizenship act.6. the question then is whether even on the assumption that the petitioner was not a foreigner when he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 05 1964 (HC)

The State of Gujarat Vs. Muniruddin, Shabhuddin

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : 1966CriLJ210

..... but that is not sufficient to prove citizenship at the date of the prosecution or at the date of the commencement of the constitution of india. article 5 of the constitution reads as follows:at the commencement of this constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of india and--(a) who was born in ..... that he was a citizen of india at the time of the prosecution. there cannot be oral evidence on the point of citizenship, although there can be oral evidence as to the ..... satisfied in this case. but the respondent has not proved that he had his domicile in the territory of india at the commencement of the constitution. he relied on an entry in a school register, but this relates to the year 1938, because it is stated in the certificate ..... of the requirements of article 5 of the constitution, namely, that the respondent had his domicile in the territory of india at the commencement of the constitution. the respondent has, therefore, failed to prove that he was a citizen of india at the commencement of the constitution. he has not led any evidence to prove ..... this article, therefore, two things must be proved, namely, that the person has his domicile in the territory of india at the commencement of the constitution, and secondly one of the things referred to in clauses (a) or (b) or (c). the second requirement has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1967 (HC)

Dawood Mahomed Pathan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1969Guj79

..... constitution was that of his father, as he was a minor then. his further case was that his father having ..... the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was not proved to be a citizen of india on january 26, 1950. in the first appeal before diwan, j. the plaintiff sought to make out his case of indian citizenship on the basis of article 5 of the constitution of india. the case before diwan j. was that his domicile at the commencement of the ..... and came to the conclusion that the learned trial judge was right when he held that the plaintiff has not established his claim of being the citizen of india under article 5 of the constitution. diwan j. accordingly dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff. it is against that decision of diwan j. that this letters patent appeal has been filed by the ..... domicile in pakistan from that date. it was also urged that the plaintiff's father has not acquired any other domicile namely, the domicile in india after august 15, 1947. therefore, at the time when the constitution of india commenced, that is, on november 26, 1949 the plaintiff's father had his domicile in pakistan and consequently the plaintiff had also his domicile .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1975 (HC)

Saiyad MahiyuddIn @ LyakathussaIn SaiyedhusaeIn Vs. State of Gujarat a ...

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (1976)17GLR1177

..... of that it is hereby clarified that if it is the case of the defendant-state that after the commencement of the constitution of india on january 26, 1950, the appellant-plaintiff has abandoned the citizenship of india or has acquired the citizenship of pakistan or any other country, it will be open to the state to obtain an adjudication on this question from the ..... -plaintiff being a minor acquired the domicile of birth from his parents and became a citizen of india. he was admittedly born in india. therefore, both the conditions of article 5 of the constitution of india are satisfied. the question, however, is whether his claim to citizenship of india is jeopardized by reason of the fact that in 1948 one abdul gafur with whom the appellant ..... january 26, 1950. it is not the case of the defendant-state in the written statement that the plaintiff had acquired the citizenship of pakistan after the commencement of the constitution of india though an issue on this point has been raised. in the present state of pleadings it is not necessary to remand the matter to the trial court and to stay ..... central government under section 9(2) of the citizenship act.the appeal is, therefore, allowed. it is declared that the appellant-plaintiff was a citizen of india on the date of the commencement of the constitution on 26th january 1950. the respondents are restrained from deporting the appellant-plaintiff from out of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1978 (HC)

State of Gujarat and anr. Vs. Saiyad Aga Mohmed Saiyedm Ohmed

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (1979)1GLR71

..... in cloth as a hawker. the plaintiff asserted that he never migrated to pakistan with intention to stay there permanently, nor had acquired pakistan citizenship. he was in india, according to the plaintiff, on the independence day when the constitution was enacted. as a matter of fact, his case is that, he had never gone to pakistan at all. however, to his surprise ..... , the government of india called upon him by its notice of march 5, 1963 to show cause, under section 9 of the citizenship act, why the central government should not determine ..... december 20, 1955, and to submit material, if any, in support of his claim that he has not voluntarily acquired the citizenship of india.4. the plaintiff objected to the central government determining his status under section 9 of the citizenship act since he was acquitted by the additional sessions judge, surat in criminal appeal no. 33 of 1958 filed by the state ..... against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, restrained the union government as well as state government from deporting the plaintiff from india till a legal order is made by the union government under section 9(2) of the citizenship act.7. the state government, therefore, carried the matter in appeal before the district court at surat by its regular civil appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //