Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: citizenship constitution of india Year: 1972 Page 1 of about 26 results (0.036 seconds)

Apr 11 1972 (HC)

Abdullah Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-11-1972

Reported in : AIR1972Raj272; 1972()WLN245

..... word 'migrated' in article 7, and, therefore, by virtue of that article he will be deemed not to be a citizen of india on the date of the commencement of the constitution. thereafter he has not claimed the citizenship of india, and should therefore be held to be a foreigner. it may also be pointed out here that according to the birth date given ..... governed by article 7 of the constitution. consequently, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner based on section 9 of the ..... domicile nor on the ground that the question whether an indian citizen has acquired the citizenship of another country cannot be determined by the courts. it was further held that under article 7 of the constitution the petitioner could not be deemed to be a citizen of india. the learned judge observed 'migration is something distinct from the act of changing one's ..... who are alleged to have voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another country at any time between 26-1-1950 and the commencement of that act i.e. 30-12-55, only 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. the present case is, however, clearly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1972 (SC)

Abdus Samad Vs. State of West Bengal

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-12-1972

Reported in : AIR1973SC505; 1973CriLJ1; (1973)1SCC451; 1973(5)LC380(SC)

..... occurred.8. the high court found that there were no materials to show that the appellant was not a resident of india for five years before the commencement of the constitution. but in order to attract article 5(c) of the constitution the appellant must have indian domicile. more residence is not domicile. there must have been the intention of the appellant on ..... , the appellant had a pakistani passport in 1952. second, the appellant made an application under section 5 of the indian citizenship act for registration as an indian citizen after the appellant had been given notice under the foreigners act to leave india.9. the high court found that when the appellant came to calcutta in 1914 he must have come over for ..... . this was a request to the government by the appellant not to be 'pushed out of india.' the appellant then made an application under section 5(1)(a) of the citizenship act on 4 may, 1962. to be registered as a citizen of india. it was never the plea of the appellant that he was an indian citizen. an application for registration as ..... an indian citizen totally repels any plea of indian citizenship of the appellant.11. in the high court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that he came to india before 19 july, 1948, and, therefore, he had migrated from pakistan to india. it is the view of this court since the decision in kulathil mammu v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 1972 (SC)

State of Assam Vs. Jilkadar Ali

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-18-1972

Reported in : AIR1972SC2166; 1972CriLJ1441; (1972)2SCC320; [1973]1SCR685

..... fida hussain : [1962]1scr776 the respondent was a natural born british subject, that being so he was at the date of his entry in india in april 1955 a citizen of india under article 5 of the constitution and that he was governed by the definition of a foreigner in the foreigners act before that act was amended in 1957. before the said ..... he has opted for service in pakistan.6. the defence of the respondent was that he was born in india, that he owned a house and lands in india and was therefore a citizen of india within the meaning of article 5 of the constitution. there is, however, the fact established by the record in this case that in 1947 he opted for pakistani ..... india notwithstanding his complying with the conditions of article 5. it is quite clear from h.p. v. pear mohammad [1963] supp. 1 s.c.r. 429 that it would be article 7 and not the citizenship act, 1955 which would apply to a case where a person has migrated to pakistan between march 1, 1947 and january 26, 1950 when the constitution ..... service, and that he left india for pakistan where he obtained service as a peon and that he lived there from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1972 (HC)

State of U.P. Vs. Wali Mohammad

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-06-1972

Reported in : AIR1973All44

..... of the enforcement of article 7. actcording to him by virtue of being born in india and having resided in india till somedate in 1949 the respondent acquired theright of citizenship and must be deemedunder article 5 to have become a citizen ofindia at the commencement of the constitution. he can be disentitled from that rightonly when he comes within the mischief ofarticle 7 ..... india and- (a) who was born in the territory of india; or (b) either of whose parents was born in ..... paragraph 7 (2) of the foreigners order. before the enactment of the citizenship act, 1955 (no. 57 of 1955) the only provisions of law on the basis of which citizenship could be determined were those contained in the constitution of india. article 5 of the constitution reads as under:-- '5. at the commencement of this constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of ..... the territory now included in pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of india,' it would be seen that while article 5 confers the right of citizenship on a person if at the date of the commencement of the constitution he fulfills any of the conditions enumerated therein, article 7 engrafts a kind of proviso thereto. the opening words of article .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 1972 (HC)

Mahammad Nazaharul Haque and anr. Vs. B. Bagchi, I.P.J.P. and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Nov-29-1972

Reported in : AIR1974Cal29,77CWN695

..... case of the state of bihar v. kumar amar singh, : [1955]1scr1259 , his lordship came to the conclusion that from the point of view of the constitution, the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of citizenship of india.16. after having so held, the learned judge went into the question as to whether the appellants were amenable to the jurisdiction under the foreigners' act ..... not merely depend upon action of a foreign country in issuing the passport.(vii) cases of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship after the commencement of the constitution have also to be dealt with by the government of india under the citizenship act. the decision in abdul sattar v. state of gujarat, air 1965 sc 819 (ibid) is corrected by the supreme court in its ..... to light show that the petitioner has migrated to pakistan after march 1, 1947 within the meaning of article 7 of the constitution, as such he cannot be deemed to be a citizen of india, no matter he has acquired the citizenship of pakistan or not.' (page 75 of the paper-book).19. there is a discussion in the judgment on the points ..... another country, but the only authority to so decide is the governmentof india acting as a quasi-judicial tribunal under the provisions of section 9(2) of the citizenship act, 1955.(iii) section 9(2) oi the citizenship act and rule 3 of the citizenship rules are intra vires the constitution and valid law.(iv) the proposition that as soon as it is alleged that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 18 1972 (HC)

Mehraj Mohammed Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Aug-18-1972

Reported in : 1972WLN544

..... affidavit of hanoo, uda, abdul aziz and gulam mohammed to the effect that the petitioner was residing in banswara on 26.1.1950 when the constitution of india was promulgated. these affidavits are however silent as to when the petitioner went to pakistan. there is no other document to show that the ..... and before the coming into force of the constitution of india, and consequently it cannot be presumed that he has ceased to be a citizen of india as envisaged by article 7 of the constitution. it is contended that under sub-section (2) of section 9 of the citizenship act. 1955, if any question arises as to ..... for determination, therefore, is whether the petitioner went to pakistan before the coming into force of the constitution, that is, 26 (sic) 1950 or at any time between 26.1.1950 and the commencement of the citizenship act, 1955, that is 13.12.1955. the petitioner has not given the date or month ..... whether, when or how any person has acquired the citizenship of another country, it shall be determined ..... the case put forward by the state is that the petitioner migrated to pakistan on partition of the country and after having acquired the citizenship of pakistan, he came to india on a temporary permit to take his wife, who was living in kota, to pakistan. it has been urged that the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 1972 (HC)

Fida HusaIn Vs. the Senior Superintendent of Police and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Sep-22-1972

Reported in : AIR1973All364

..... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 etc. of the constitution came into force article 394 provides that the aforesaid article shall come into force at once and the ..... of the commencement of the constitution he fulfils any of the conditions enumerated therein, article 7 is a distinct provision which prevents the consequences contemplated ..... was on that basis a citizen of india. this argument completely overlooks the implications of article 7 of the constitution which are clearly attracted by the facts of the instant case. it would be seen that while article 5 confers a right of citizenship on a person if at the date ..... be a citizen of india.10. sri sadiq ali attempted to steer clear of article 7 by resorting to a rather ingenious argument. according to his contention the interpretation of article 7 must be made with reference to the specific date on which the provisions of the constitution relating to citizenship i.e. articles ..... india notwithstanding his complying with the conditions of article 5. it is quite clear from state of m. p. v. peer mohammad that it would be article 7 and not the citizenship act, 1955 which would apply to a case where a person has migrated to pakistan between march 1, 1947 and january 26, 1950 when the constitution .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1972 (SC)

Shri R.L. Narasimham ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-04-1972

Reported in : AIR1972SC2405; 1972LabIC1420; (1972)2SCC763; [1973]1SCR773

..... 1937 order 'governor general' was substituted for 'secretary of state'. this apparently became necessary as a result of india having become an independent dominion. when the new constitution was framed india constituted itself into a sovereign democratic republic. chapter v of particle vi deals with the high courts in the states ..... justices before us, as their rights under this order were stated to have been preserved in subsequent enactments and also in the present constitution of india and in the 1954 act. we may, therefore, start with the examination of the relevant provisions dealing with the pension payable to ..... in clause (2) of article 217 the judges of a high court in any province holding office immediately before the commencement of this constitution shall, unless they have elected otherwise, become on such commencement the judges of the high court in the corresponding state, and shall thereupon ..... person must, among other qualifications stated in article 217(2), be a citizen of india. the existing judges of the high courts were, however, specifically exempted from the requirement of qualification of indian citizenship contained in this sub-article : vide article 376(1). according to article 216 every ..... high court is to consist of a chief justice and such other judges as the president may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint. article 221 of the constitution fixed .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 1972 (FN)

Johnson Vs. Louisiana

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-22-1972

..... however, that these and other safeguards provide no more than limited protection. the requirement that the verdict of the jury be unanimous, surely as important as these other constitutional requisites, preserves the jury's function in linking law with contemporary society. it provides the simple and effective method endorsed by centuries of experience and history to combat ..... addition to their primary contention that unanimity is a requirement of state jury trials because the fourteenth amendment "incorporates" the sixth, also assert that oregon's constitutional provision offends the federal constitutional guarantee against the systematic exclusion of any group within the citizenry from participating in the criminal trial process. while the systematic exclusion of identifiable minorities from jury ..... civil rights? it has long been thought that the "thou shalt nots" in the constitution and bill of rights protect everyone against governmental intrusion or overreaching. the idea has been obnoxious that there are some who can be relegated to second-class citizenship. but if we construe the bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment to permit states ..... to "experiment" with the basic rights of people, we open a veritable pandora's box. for hate and prejudice are versatile forces that can degrade the constitutional scheme. [ footnote 3/3 ] page 406 u .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 19 1972 (FN)

Mitchum Vs. Foster

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-19-1972

..... also to all people where, under color of state law, they or any of them may be deprived of rights to which they are entitled under the constitution by reason and virtue of their national citizenship." cong.globe, 42d cong., 1st sess., app. 68 (1871). and as representative hoar stated: "the principal danger that menaces us today is from the effort ..... is endeavoring to secure to them." cong.globe, 42d cong., 1st sess. 335. although, as originally drafted in 1871, 1983's predecessor protected rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution, the provision included by the congress in the revised statutes of 1874 was enlarged to provide protection for rights, privileges, or immunities secured by federal law as well. rev.stat ..... by any person:" " * * * *" "(3) to redress the deprivation, under color of any state law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the constitution of the united states or by any act of congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the united states. . . ." [ footnote 6 ] the ..... congress, 42 u.s.c. 1983, expressly authorizes a "suit in equity" to redress "the deprivation," under color of state law, "of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution. . . ." [ footnote 2 ] the question before us is whether this "act of congress" comes within the "expressly authorized" exception of the anti-injunction statute so as to permit a federal .....

Tag this Judgment!


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