Introduction

The case of Kedar Pandey (In Both The Appeals) v. Narain Bikram Sah (In Both The Appeals) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on April 15, 1965, delves into the pivotal issue of citizenship as governed by Article 173 of the Constitution of India. This case arose from an election dispute in the Bihar Legislative Assembly, where Kedar Pandey contested the election of Narain Bikram Sah (commonly referred to as Narain Raja) on grounds of Sah's alleged non-Indian citizenship. The crux of the matter revolved around Sah's domicile—whether his domicile of origin was Nepal or India, and whether he had acquired a domicile of choice in India, thereby satisfying the constitutional requirements for eligibility.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court examined whether Narain Raja was a citizen of India under Article 173 of the Indian Constitution. Initially, the Election Tribunal ruled Sah as a non-citizen, thereby voiding his election. However, the High Court of Patna overturned this decision, affirming Sah's Indian citizenship based on his domicile of choice in India. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that Sah had indeed established a domicile of choice in India prior to the commencement of the Constitution. Consequently, the court dismissed both appeals filed by Kedar Pandey against Narain Raja's election.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced established legal precedents to ascertain the parameters of domicile. Key cases cited include:

• Winans v. Attorney-General (1904): Emphasized the necessity of proving a change of domicile through clear abandonment of the original domicile and acquisition of a new one.
• Munro v. Munro: Highlighted that a domicile of origin remains until there is a deliberate intention and action to establish a new domicile of choice.
• Udny v. Udny: Defined the criteria for domicile of choice, focusing on intention and permanence of residence.
• Doucet v. Geoghegan: Reinforced that actions and lifestyle choices are critical in determining domicile, irrespective of mere declarations.
• Moorhouse v. Lord and Aikman v. Aikman: Discussed the complexities of intention and permanence in establishing domicile of choice.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the concept of domicile, differentiating between domicile of origin and domicile of choice. The court underscored that for Narain Raja to qualify as an Indian citizen, he must have abandoned his domicile of origin (Nepal) and established a domicile of choice in India. The determination rested on two primary factors:

• Residence: Narain Raja had been residing in India since his birth, managing properties, engaging in political activities, and integrating into the social framework of India.
• Intention (Animus Manendi): His actions demonstrated a clear intention to make India his permanent home, such as acquiring property, participating in local governance, and obtaining an Indian passport.

The court concluded that the combination of continuous residence and purposeful integration into Indian society fulfilled the requirements of Article 5(c), thereby establishing his domicile of choice in India.

Impact

This judgment serves as a significant precedent in Indian constitutional law, particularly concerning the interpretation of citizenship based on domicile. It clarifies the nuanced distinction between domicile of origin and domicile of choice, establishing that:

• Continuous and deliberate residence, coupled with clear intent to settle permanently, can override the initial domicile of origin.
• The burden of proving a change in domicile lies with the party asserting the change.
• The court will consider the individual's conduct and circumstances both before and after the relevant period to ascertain domicile.

This case has broader implications for electoral law, ensuring that candidates meet constitutional eligibility criteria regarding citizenship, thereby upholding the integrity of the democratic process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Domicile of Origin vs. Domicile of Choice

- Domicile of Origin: The domicile a person acquires by operation of law at birth, typically based on the domicile of the father or mother.

- Domicile of Choice: A new domicile a person establishes by moving to a new location with the intention of making it their permanent home.

Animus Manendi

This Latin term refers to the "intention to remain" in a place, a critical element in establishing a domicile of choice. It signifies a person's mental determination to stay indefinitely in a new location.

Article 173 of the Constitution of India

This article pertains to the qualifications for being elected to the Legislative Assemblies of States. It outlines citizenship requirements, ensuring that only individuals who are citizens of India are eligible to be elected.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Kedar Pandey v. Narain Bikram Sah underscores the paramount importance of domicile in determining citizenship and electoral eligibility under the Indian Constitution. By meticulously evaluating Narain Raja's residence and intentions, the court affirmed that true domicile of choice can supersede domicile of origin, ensuring that individuals who genuinely integrate and commit to residing in India are recognized as its citizens. This judgment not only reinforced legal principles surrounding domicile but also safeguarded the integrity of the democratic electoral process by upholding stringent eligibility criteria for legislative assembly candidates.