Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-29-1971
Reported in : AIR1971SC1594; (1971)3SCC265; SuppSCR245; 1971(III)LC520(SC)
..... the high court challenging the validity of the proposed demarcation principally on the ground that they would be deprived of the right of citizenship conferred by the constitution of india and also of their property without payment of compensation. d.d. basu j. called for an affidavit in opposition and after hearing lengthy arguments delivered an elaborate judgment : air1967cal216 directing ..... 143(1) of the constitution of india : 3scr250 . as mentioned in the advisory opinion berubari union no. 12 had an area of 8.75 sq. miles and a population of 10 to 12 thousand residents. it ..... of another item of the agreement which related to the exchange of certain enclaves but with which we are not concerned. the president of india made a reference to this court under article 143(1), of the constitution for its advisory opinion. the opinion was delivered on march 14, 1960. (in re: the berubari union and exchange of enclaves reference under article ..... an appeal from a judgment of a learned single judge of the calcutta high court who granted a certificate under article 132(1) of the constitution. it involves primarily the question whether the cession of a territory by india as a result of a treaty with pakistan would be compulsory acquisition of the property comprised in that territory by the union of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-23-1971
Reported in : AIR1971SC1382; 1971CriLJ1103; (1971)2SCC113; SuppSCR494
..... extended by the appropriate authority up to may 22, 1965. as he was clearly a citizen of india at the commencement of the constitution and the question arose whether he had lost indian citizenship thereafter, the central government had to determine under section 9 of the citizenship act the question of the acquisition of pakistan nationality by the respondent. this court in government of ..... of the constitution and his entry into india in 1955, the respondent would continue to be an indian ..... subject under any law for the time being in force in india, or (iii) is not a citizen of india. the citizenship act, 1955, having been published in the gazette of india on december 30, 1955, was also not in force at the time when the respondent entered india. we may, therefore, turn to the constitution to see if the respondent was a citizen of ..... the time of the commencement of the constitution. clause (a) of article 5 clearly covers the case of the respondent who was born in the territory of india and had his domicile in this territory at the commencement of the constitution. being a citizen of india at the commencement of the constitution in 1950, unless he lost his citizenship under some law between the commencement .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-30-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Bom357; (1972)74BOMLR271; ILR1972Bom1262; 1972MhLJ649
..... india; or (b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of ..... on the ground that he was already a citizen of india, are grounds on which the petitioner could be considered as a foreigner.18. the petitioner claims citizenship under art. 5 of the constitution of india which runs 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 the territory of ..... , as stated above, he described himself as a citizen of india.24. moreover, once the facts establish that he was a citizen of india under art. 5 of the constitution of india, it is now well settled that it is only the central government which has jurisdiction to decide whether he has acquired foreign citizenship. this question has to be decided by the central government ..... the time of the commencement of the constitution having been born in india in 1922 and having been brought in india, educated in india carrying on business permanently and living permanently in india. he also submitted that his conduct in filling up the forms under the registration of foreigners rules and under section 6 of the citizenship act was not voluntary and was as a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-20-1971
Reported in : AIR1972P& H210
..... . we are of opinion that these two provisions must be exhaustive of the citizens of this country, part ii dealing with citizens on the date the constitution came into force and the citizenship act dealing with citizens thereafter. we must, therefore, hold that these two provisions are completely exhaustive of the citizens of this country and these citizens can only be natural ..... should be given to the concerned government servant to show cause against his compulsory retirement. a government servant serving under the union of india hold his office at the pleasure of the president provided in art. 310 of the constitution. but this 'pleasure' doctrine is subject to the rules or law made under art. 309 as well as to the conditions prescribed ..... to the citizens and to incorporate bodies like the petitioner-company. this point was considered by a bench of nine judges of the supreme court in state trading corpn. of india ltd. v. the commercial tax officer. air 1963 sc 1811. their lordships observed as follows:--'it seems to us, in view of what we have said already as to the ..... claim of a government servant, whose tenure of office was not extended beyond 55, when he completed the age of superannuating, their lordships of the supreme court in union of india v. j. n. sinha, air 1971 sc 40 repelled that claim in the following terms:--'fundamental rule 56(j) (civil services fundamental rules) in terms does not require that opportunity .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-10-1971
Reported in : AIR1972HP37
..... 6 of the constitution. nevertheless, it was contended, on behalf of the opposite parties, that ..... petitioners rightly pointed out that, so far as displaced persons from pakistan were concerned, their position was governed by the special provisions of articles 6 and 7 of the constitution of india. in kulathil mammu v. state of kerala, (air 1966 sc 1614) the supreme court had held that, even though such persons may have left pakistan without intending ..... they had left pakistan before 19th july, 1948. and had resided in india since that time upto the commencement of the constitution. the term 'migration' was given a wider import than it has in the private international law. such persons acquired indian citizenship by reason of our special constitutional provisions.103. it is not denied that the father of each of the ..... two petitioners had acquired indian citizenship by migrating to india within the meaning of article .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-18-1971
Reported in : 1971CriLJ977
..... 'migration' and deals only with voluntary acquisition of citizenship of a foreign state before the constitution came into force. cases of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship after the commencement of the constitution have to be dealt with by the government of india under the citizenship act, 1955.section 7(3)(iii) of the ..... it was held that the respondent was a foreigner and was a citizen of pakistan. under section 9(2) of the citizenship act, 1955 the said determination is final. in kulathil mammu v. state of kerala : 1966crilj1217 it had been held:article 9 does not ..... 7(5)(iii) of the foreigners order or violates any provision contained in the foreigners act h notice calling upon him to leave india shall precede before he is prosecuted for the same. the aforesaid decision of the learned single judge was confined to the facts of ..... foreigners order, 1948 reads as under:every foreigner to whom a permit is issued under sub-section (1) or sub-paragraph (2) shall, unless the period indicated in the permit is extended by the central government, depart from india ..... on 5-4-1963 that the respondent had entered into india on a pakistani passport dated 3-4-1963. he had thereafter obtained requisite permit which was to expire on 4-5-1963. the question concerning the citizenship of the respondent was determined by the central government when .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-26-1971
Reported in : 1972CriLJ556
..... section 237 of the code of criminal procedure. this principle is recognised under section 403 of the criminal procedure code and the same principle is embodied in article 20(2) of the constitution of india. the principle would not be applicable if the offence for which the accused is tried subsequently is a distinct offence based on a different set of facts. the earlier ..... the pendency of the previous case, but once that case has been decided, it was not open even to the central government to decide whether the respondent had renounced the citizenship of india and had become a national of pakistan. this reasoning of the learned sessions judge is devoid of any merits and cannot be accepted.10. on the basis of the ..... on record that the question of citizenship of the respondent was determined by the government of india under section 9(2) of the citizenship act and rule 30 of the citizenship rules by an order dated 20-9-1966. a copy of the aforesaid order was served on the respondent ..... of the foreigners act.2. the respondent, mohammad amin was sent up for trial on the allegations that he had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of pakistan and intentionally disobeyed the order of the state government to leave india within twenty-four hours and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 14 of the foreigners act.3. it is apparent from the evidence .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-05-1971
..... written shortly after the fourteenth amendment was ratified, the court stated that one of the primary purposes of the citizenship clause was "to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the united states, and also citizenship of a state." slaughter-house cases, 16 wall. 36, 83 u. s. 73 (1873). in ..... 301(b) does not take into account in any way whether the citizen intends or desires to relinquish his citizenship, that section is inevitably inconsistent with the constitutional principles declared in afroyim. the court today holds that the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment has no application to bellei. the court first notes that afroyim was essentially a ..... the usual naturalization process. the plaintiff here would force the congress to choose between unconditional conferment of united states citizenship at birth and deferment of citizenship until a condition precedent is fulfilled. we are not convinced that the constitution requires so rigid a choice. if it does, the congressional response seems obvious. 7. neither are we persuaded ..... english concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute. 2. the constitution as originally adopted contained no definition of united states citizenship. however, it referred to citizenship in general terms and in varying contexts: art. i, 2, cl. 2, qualifications for members of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-14-1971
..... establish an uniform rule of naturalization." a congressional enactment construed so as to permit state legislatures to adopt divergent laws on the subject of citizenship requirements for federally supported welfare programs would appear to contravene this explicit constitutional requirement of uniformity. [ footnote 14 ] since "statutes should be construed whenever possible so as to uphold page 403 u. s. ..... the notion that "[w]hatever is a privilege, rather than a right, may be made dependent upon citizenship." people v. crane, 214 n.y. at 164, 108 n.e. at 430. but this court now has rejected the concept that constitutional rights turn upon whether a governmental benefit is characterized as a "right" or as a "privilege." sherbert ..... residency, equate with the assertion of a right, inconsistent with federal policy, to deny entrance and abode. since such laws encroach upon exclusive federal power, they are constitutionally impermissible. iv arizona suggests, finally, that its 15-year durational residency requirement for aliens is actually authorized by federal law. reliance is placed on 1402(b) of ..... on dandridge v. williams, 397 u. s. 471 (1970), is also misplaced, since the classification involved in that case (family size) neither impinged upon a fundamental constitutional right nor employed an inherently suspect criterion. we agree with the three-judge court in the pennsylvania case that the "justification of limiting expenses is particularly inappropriate and unreasonable when .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-20-1971
..... of a firearm by felons, veterans who are discharged under dishonorable conditions, mental incompetents, aliens who are illegally in the country, and former citizens who have renounced their citizenship, constitutes -- " "(1) a burden on commerce or threat affecting the free flow of commerce," "(2) a threat to the safety of the president of the united states ..... trusted to possess a firearm -- those whose prior acts -- mostly voluntary -- have placed them outside of our society. . . ." " * * * *" ". . . i am convinced that we have enough constitutional power to prohibit these categories of people from possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm. . . ." " * * * *" "this amendment would provide that a convicted felon who participates in one of these marches ..... that this legislation demonstrates that possession of a deadly weapon by the wrong people can be controlled by congress, without regard to where the police power resides under the constitution." "without question, the federal government does have power to control possession of weapons where such possession could become a threat to interstate commerce. . . ." "state ..... ) a threat to the continued and effective operation of the government of the united states and of the government of each state guaranteed by article iv. of the constitution." the government argues that these findings would have been "wholly unnecessary" unless congress intended to prohibit all receipts and possessions of firearms by felons. but these findings of .....Tag this Judgment!