- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ghaurul Hasan And Others v. State Of Rajasthan And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners were born in India before the commencement of the Constitution but left for the territory that later became Pakistan in 1947. They periodically returned to India on Pakistani passports, the last entry being in April 1956. In December 1956 they applied to the Collector of Nagaur, Rajasthan, for registration as Indian citizens under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Certificates of registration were issued on 19 December 1956.
On 5 February 1957 two petitioners sought citizenship certificates for their minor children under Section 5(1)(d). An officer then retrieved the existing certificates on the pretext of noting the children’s names. On 8 February 1957 the Collector cancelled the registrations and ordered the petitioners to return to Pakistan within three days.
The petitioners filed a writ petition to quash the Collector’s cancellation order. The original respondents were the State of Rajasthan and the Collector of Nagaur; the Union of India was later added upon notice by the Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Collector of Nagaur had legal authority to cancel certificates of citizenship issued under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
- Whether the cancellation could be justified under Section 10(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act on the ground that the registration had been obtained by “fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact.”
- Whether, apart from the Citizenship Act, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act empowered the Collector to revoke the registration certificates.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents' Arguments
- The Collector could cancel the registrations under Section 10(2)(a) because the petitioners allegedly concealed prior applications for long-term visas that had been refused.
- Even if Section 10(2)(a) was inapplicable, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act conferred an inherent power on the Collector to revoke an order that he had issued.
Petitioners' Arguments
- Section 10(2)(a) requires that deprivation of citizenship be ordered by the Central Government, not by a Collector.
- Persons registered under Section 5(1)(a) are outside the reach of Section 10(2) because subsection (1) expressly excludes them.
- No fraud or concealment occurred; their registration applications openly disclosed the prior refusal of long-term visas.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found it unnecessary to decide whether the Collector, rather than the Central Government, could exercise powers under Section 10(2) or whether Section 10 applied to Section 5(1)(a) registrations. Even assuming Section 10(2)(a) applied, its use depends on proving that registration was obtained through fraud, false representation, or concealment of a material fact.
The only ground advanced was that the petitioners had concealed previous applications for long-term visas that had been refused. Examination of the original registration forms showed that the petitioners had expressly disclosed these refusals. Counsel for the respondents ultimately accepted this factual position. Because the alleged concealment was unsupported, the statutory pre-condition for deprivation of citizenship under Section 10(2)(a) failed.
The Court also rejected reliance on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, holding that the “orders” contemplated by that provision are not of the kind made under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act; therefore, Section 21 did not provide cancellation power to the Collector.
Holding and Implications
Orders cancelling the petitioners’ registrations as Indian citizens were quashed and set aside; the petitioners are entitled to costs.
The immediate consequence is that the petitioners retain their status as Indian citizens and cannot be compelled to leave India. The judgment is confined to the facts and statutory interpretation in this case, and the Court did not announce any broader legal doctrine beyond clarifying that cancellation under Section 10(2)(a) requires proven fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment and that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act does not supply an independent power of revocation in this context.
Sarkar, J.— The petitioners were born in India before the commencement of the Constitution. Sometime in 1947, they went away to the territory since included in Pakistan. They used to come to India from time to time and the last time that they came, was in April 1956. Each time they came to India, they did so on passports issued by the Government of Pakistan.
2. In December 1956, they applied to the Collector of Nagaur in Rajasthan where they resided, for registration as citizens of India. On December 19, 1956, the Collector of Nagaur issued certificates of registration to them under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Subsequently on February 5, 1957, two of the petitioners made applications for grant of citizenship certificates to their minor children under Section 5(l)(d) of that Act. On February 6, 1957, an officer of the Collectorate of Nagaur took back the registration certificates issued to Petitioners 2 and 3 on the representation that they were required for recording in them the names of the minor children for whose registration as citizens of India applications had been made. On February 8, 1957, notices were issued by the Collector of Nagaur cancelling the registration certificates issued to the petitioners and directing them to return to Pakistan within three days.
3. The petitioners have presented this petition for a writ quashing the order of the Collector of Nagaur cancelling their registration as citizens of, and requiring them to leave, India. The respondents to this petition originally were the State of Rajasthan and the Collector of Nagaur. Subsequently, under our order notice of the petition was given to the Union of India and the Union has appeared.
4. The only question is whether the cancellation of the registration of the petitioners as citizens of India, was valid. It was said on behalf of the respondents that the Collector had power to cancel the registration under Section 10(2)(a) of the Act. That provision states, amongst other things, that the Central Government may by order deprive certain citizens of India of their citizenship “if it is satisfied that the registration ... was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact”. The petitioners' answer to this contention was that the cancellation of their registration was not by the Central Government but by the Collector. They also contended that their registration as citizens could not be cancelled under sub-Section (2) of Section 10. They pointed out that sub-section (2) started with the words “Subject to the provisions of this section” and contended that the powers under that sub-section could, therefore, be exercised subject to the other provisions of Section 10. They then referred to sub-section (1) of Section 10 which so far as relevant provided, “A citizen of India who is such .... by registration otherwise than under ... clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of this Act shall cease to be a citizen of India if he is deprived of that citizenship by an order of the Central Government under this section.” They contended that they became citizens of India by registration under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act and they could not be deprived of their citizenship under sub-section (2) of Section 10.
5. On the facts of this case it is unnecessary to express any opinion on these contentions. In any event, under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 a citizen can be deprived of his citizenship only if it is proved that the registration was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact. This power cannot, therefore, be exercised unless such fraud, false representation or suppression of a material fact exists. It was contended by the respondents that the petitioners had obtained registration as citizens of India by suppressing the fact that they had earlier applied to the Government of India for long term visas for permanent settlement in India which had been refused by that Government. The making of the previous applications and their rejection are no doubt material facts. The contention however that these facts were concealed is clearly unfounded. It has been proved to our satisfaction by the production of the original applications for registration made by the petitioners that they had mentioned the fact that their applications for permission to settle permanently in India had been rejected by the Government. As we understood learned counsel for the respondents, he also accepted this position.
6. The only other point that was taken by the respondents was that the Collector having the power to grant the registration certificate under the Citizenship Act had by virtue of Section 21 of the General clauses Act, and apart from Section 10(2) of the Citizenship Act, the power to cancel it. We are entirely unable to agree that Section 21 conferred on the Collector any such power. The orders mentioned in that section are not orders of the kind contemplated in Section 5 of the Citizenship Act.
7. It seems to us therefore that the orders cancelling the registration of the petitioners as citizens were wholly illegal and unsupportable and they are accordingly set aside. The petitioners will be entitled to the costs of this application.
Alert