Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-10-1963
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!