Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 106 (2.48 seconds)
Documents citing Izhar Ahmad Khan vs Union Of India on 16 February, 1962

Biltu Ray @ Bilat Ray @ Bilat Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 16 July, 2024

"It is now well-settled that the question as to whether a person who was a citizen of this country on January 26, 1950, has lost his Citizenship thereafter, has to be determined under the provisions of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955). There is also no doubt that this question has to be decided by the Central Government as provided by Rule 30 of the Rules framed under the Citizenship Act in 1956. The validity of Section 9 as well as of Rule 30 has been upheld by this Court in the case of Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India.
Patna High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - R Roy - Full Document

Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, Through Its ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through ... on 24 November, 2006

85. The argument of the petitioner that Article 11 in the Constitution cannot derogate the power of Article 5 is without any basis. From the plain reading of Article 11 it is manifestly clear that all the provisions from Article 5 to Article 10 shall not derogate the power of Parliament to make any provisions with regard to acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship. In its ingenuinity the petitioner contended that the phrase "all other matters relating to citizenship" only deals with acquisition and termination of citizenship. From the plain and simple reading of Article 11 the words used "acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters" make it clear that not only matters pertaining to acquisition and termination of citizenship but for all other matters relating to citizenship, the power of Parliament was unbridled and Parliament could legislate on all such matters. As a matter of fact, after a careful reading of the words occurring in Article 11 of the Constitution of India "all other matters relating to citizenship" power was given to the Parliament and if Parliament in its wisdom wanted foreign born person not to hold an executive or a public office i.e. an office of a political party, the Parliament was not bereft of the power not to legislate on that aspect of the matter. From the conjoint reading of Chapter II relating to citizenship there is not an iota of doubt that what the Constitutional framers intended was to give unbridled power to Parliament to make laws in relation to citizenship, therefore, to go to any other Constitution or to commentary would be totally out of context. Even if we analyze in cross contextual use of statutory provisions we have to bear in mind that Parliament pursuant to Article 11 of the Constitution of India read with Article 246 Entry 17 in 7th Schedule enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955. The scope of Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution dealing with citizenship has been discussed by a Constitution Bench in Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India [1962] Suppl.3 SCR 235. The Citizenship Act was amended from time to time keeping in view the ground realities and the need of change. Parliament responded by amending Citizenship Act from 1955 till latest amendment came in force in 2005. Parliament having amended the Citizenship Act in last half a century several times and not incorporating a prohibition making a distinction in relation to a right of a citizen to exercise civic or political rights, can this Court in its jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of the Constitution and the Statute relating to Citizenship Act do so? The answer is in the negative. Citizenship Act, 1955 for the first time brought the concept of a person born in India after 26th January, 1950. That person acquired citizenship by birth and thereafter there were other provisions of the Citizenship Act which we may not dilate. Citizenship Amendment Act, 1957 was enacted, thereafter Page 0114 came the Repealing and Amending Act, 1960, thereafter the Citizenship Amendment Act, 1985 where in order to give effect to certain provisions in the Memorandum of Settlement relating to the foreigners issue in Assam (Assam Accord), the Citizenship Act was amended. After Section 6, Section 6A was inserted by the Amendment Act. Sub-Section 4 of Section 6A reads as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Mohd. Kaleemuddin vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 April, 1989

In Izhar Ahmad Khan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , it has been held that the Citizenship Rules, 1956 framed by the Central Government under Section 9(2) of the said Act as valid as thereby the Central Government has been authorised to prescribe rules of evidence. The rules of evidence as mentioned in 3rd Schedule appended to the Citizenship Rules, bear rules of evidence. It was thus open to make a provision with regard to the conclusive proof.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Kiran Gupta vs The State Election Commission on 12 October, 2020

"It is now well-settled that the question as to whether a person who was a citizen of this country on January 26, 1950, has lost his Citizenship thereafter, has to be determined under the provisions of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955). There is also no doubt that this question has to be decided by the Central Government as provided by Rule 30 of the Rules framed under the Citizenship Act in 1956. The validity of Section 9 as well as of Rule 30 has been upheld by this Court in the case of Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India.
Patna High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - S Karol - Full Document

State Of U. P vs Rahmatullah on 23 April, 1971

"it is now well settled that the question as to whether a person who was a citizen of this country on January 26, 1950, has lost his citizenship thereafter, has to be determined under the provisions of section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (No. LVII of 1955). There is also no doubt that this question has to be decided by the Central Government as provided by Rule 30 of the Rules framed under the Citizenship Act in 1956. The validity of section 9 as well as of Rule 30 has been up- held by this Court in the case of Izhar Ahmad Khan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. It has also been held by this Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Peer Mohd. and Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 12 of 1961 decided on Sept. 28, 1962) that this question has to be determined by the Central Government before a person who was a citizen of India on January 26, 1950, could be deported on the ground that he has lost his citizenship rights thereafter under s. 9 of the Citizenship Act. Unless the Central Government decides this question, such a person cannot be treated as a foreigner and cannot be deported from the territories of India."
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 12 - I D Dua - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors vs Shah Mohammad & Anr on 13 March, 1969

The new procedure would itself become the "procedure established by law" within the meaning of Art. 21 of the Constitution. Therefore even on the assumption that loss of Indian citizenship with consequent deportation may involve loss of personal liberty within the meaning of Art. 21, it is not possible to hold that by applying s. 9 of the Act and Rule 30 of the Rules to a case in which a suit had been instituted prior to the commencement of the Act there would be any contravention or violation of that Article. In conclusion it may be mentioned that this could, in several cases, has consistently held that questions falling within s. 9(2) have to be determined to the extent indicated therein by the 1013 Central Government and not by the courts. Such matters as are not covered by that provision have, however, to be determined by the courts; (see Akbar Khan Alam Khan & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors. (1) and lzhar Ahmed Khan v. Union of India) (2) and The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Mohd. Khan) (3).
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 19 - A N Grover - Full Document

S. Nalini Srikaran vs Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By Its ... on 7 March, 2007

In Md. Ayub Khan v. Commr. of Police , the Supreme Court did not entertain the plea which had been sought to be advanced before it namely., that Izhar Ahmed's case required reconsideration as certain aspects of the question had not been brought to the notice of the Court. The Court, however, construed and interpreted the provisions which are required to be applied by us also namely., Section 9 of the Citizenship Act and Rule 30 and Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - A P Shah - Full Document

Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 17 February, 1964

In lzhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India, 1962 AIR(SC) 1052 it has been held by this Court that R. 3 of Sch. III, framed under S. 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act is valid, and so, whenever a question as to whether a person has acquired the citizenship of a foreign State falls to be considered, the jurisdiction to decide that question vests exclusively in the Government of India, and in determining the said question the Government of India may exercise its powers as prescribed by the relevant rules and may reach its decision in the light of R. 3 of Sch. III. It has also been held that if the question about the acquisition of citizenship of a foreign country has not been determined, in respect of any person, by the Government of India as prescribed by the relevant rules, it would not be open to any State to prosecute the said person on the basis that he has lost his citizenship of India and has acquired the citizenship of a foreign country.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Mahant Dharam Das Etc. Etc vs The State Of Punjab And Ors on 14 January, 1974

In lzhar Ahmed Khan's case sub-s. (2) of s. 9 of the Citizenship, Act provided that if any question arises as to whether, when or how any person has acquired the citizenship of another country, it shall be determined by such authority, in such manner, and having regard to such rules of evidence as may be prescribed in that behalf. Under the above provision rule 3 of Sch. III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956 was framed and it was this rule that was challenged. The Court while up-holding it examined the question as to when it could be said that the conclusive presumption prescribed by the statute fell within the ambit of the rules of evidence and when it could not be so said. If rebuttable presumptions are within the domain of the law of evidence irrebuttable presumptions would also be within the domain of that branch of the law. Even though the rule provided for a conclusive presumption, the majority held that it prescribed a rule of evidence. That was a case of a rule made under a statutory provision but sub-s. (4) of s. 3 and sub-s. (5) of s. 7 of the Act are rules of evidence prescribed by the Legislature which is competent to provide, for irrebuttable and conclusive presumptions not only as mere rules of evidence but even as substantive pieces of law so long as the relevant provisions are within the legislative competence of the Legislature and are not otherwise unconstitutional.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 10 - P J Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next