Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: citizenship constitution of india Sorted by: recent Court: gujarat Year: 1986 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.011 seconds)

Jun 17 1986 (HC)

Shrivas Rajeshkumar Satyanarayana Vs. Chairman, Selection Committee an ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-17-1986

Reported in : AIR1987Guj4

..... the territory, not connection with the membership of the community which is at the root of the notion of citizenship or nationality.13. at the time of the coming into force of the constitution of india, the petitioner's father was a domicil of gujarat both by birth as well as by choice. he was ..... of what is referred to above, i have to consider whether the family of a nayi of uttar pradesh who has migrated to gujarat before the constitution of india came into force can, be said to be a family not belonging to gujarat? in other words, whether the family of the petitioner and the ..... in the accompanying annexure i should be considered as socially and educationally backward for the purposes of art. 15(4) and art. 16(4) of the constitution of india.'annexure 'i' to the said resolution shows the castes/classes and groups recommended by the bakshi commission. entry no. 76 of the said annexure 'i' ..... in annexure 'i' to the said resolution to be s.e.b. class for the purpose of arts. 15(4) and 16(4) of the constitution of india. the said recommendation of the commission has been accepted by the government by the said resolution. the operative portion (i.e. para 2) of the said ..... 'citizenship by domicile', which is as under:'the term 'domicile' is not defined in the constitution. every person is born with a domicile of origin. in other words, every person has a domicile at his birth, which is called domicile of origin, this continues to prevail until he acquires a new domicile central bank of india .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1986 (HC)

Abdul Kader Mahomed Jhaveri Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-29-1986

Reported in : AIR1987Guj176; 1987(14)ECC81; (1987)1GLR537

..... not be saved by art. 19(2) or art. 19(6), because the impounding of the passport for an indefinite length of time would clearly constitute an unreasonable restriction. the union contended that though the period for which the impugned order was to operate was not specified in so many terms, it ..... indian territory on the basis of a foreign passport issued by the republic of south africa nor does he dispute that he is a foreign national having citizenship of south africa. as he admits this position, his passport becomes totally irrelevant for the inquiry under s. 51 of the act for infraction of ..... mentioned in the order, need to look at the original passport may arise for the appellate board and in the meantime, if the petitioner leaves india on his foreign passport the appellate board may not be able to look at the said passport. this apprehension is more imaginary than real. if ..... therein. we may in this connection refer to the observations of the majority judgment of the supreme court in the case of maneka gandhi v. union of india, (1978) 1 scc 248: (air 1978 sc 597), bhagwati, j. (as he then was) speaking for the majority has made the following pertinent ..... totally irrelevant. he, however, rightly conceded that question whether he was a foreign national who had entered into indian territory and who had resided in india may involve a question whether he had entered the indian territory armed with foreign passport and to that extent his foreign passport may become relevant. however, .....

Tag this Judgment!


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