Exception to rule of caveat emptor

Caveat emptor is a combination of two Latin words. Caveat means caution or warning or beware; and Emptor means the buyer, the purchaser. Caveat emptor means: Let the purchaser beware. It is a disclaimer of liability for buyer’s disappointment. It is one of the settled maxims, applying to a purchaser who is bound by actual as well as constructive knowledge of any defect in the thing purchased, which is obvious or which might have been known by proper diligence.
 

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR
There are certain exceptions to this rule of caveat emptor. They are:
 
**PURCHASE BY DESCRIPTION- The rule of caveat emptor does not apply in a case where goods are bought by description from a seller. In such a situation there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description. It is a condition which goes to the root of the contract, and the breach of it entitles the buyers to reject the goods.
 
** PURCHASE BY SAMPLES AND DESCRIPTION - Where goods are bought by sample as well as by description and the bulk of goods do not correspond with the sample or with the description, the buyer is entitled to reject the goods. The rule of caveat emptor shall not apply in such a case.
 
** FITNESS FOR PURPOSE - Where the buyer informs the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required and relies upon the seller’s skill or judgment there is in that case, an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for the purposes for which they are required.
 
** TRADE NAME - In the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose.
 
** MERCHANTABLE QUALITY- Where the goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description whatever he is manufacturer or producers or not, there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality.
 
** USAGE OF TRADE- Where the usage or trade annexes an implied condition or warranty as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose and seller deviates from that, then this rule (of caveat emptor) does not apply.
 
** SALE BY SAMPLE - In a sale of goods by sample, the rule of caveat emptor does not apply if the bulk does not correspond with the sample or if the buyer is not given an opportune ity to compare bulk with the sample.
 
** CONSENT BY FRAUD - Where the seller makes a false statement intentionally to the buyer and the buyer relies on it or where the seller knowingly conceals the defects in the good, the doctrine of caveat emptor does not apply.

** In every contract of sale there is an implied condition that the seller has a right to sell the goods and in an agreement to sell he has a right to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass. The transfer of title to the goods can only be made either by the owner or an agent.

Introduction
Caveat emptor is a Latin term meaning "let the buyer beware". It is a general rule of law that a purchaser assumes the risk of his/her purchase. The intent of the rule is to place a duty of care on the buyer in selecting an item and putting forth appropriate inquiry before completing the sale. In this way, a seller is also protected from liability for buyer's remorse.

A seller is under no duty to reveal unflattered truths about the goods sold and therefore, whenever the buyer buys goods, he must exercise necessary care in his own interest. A buyer, in contract of sale of specific goods, purchases the goods at his own risk as regard as the quality, price of the goods except on the case of fraud or when any condition to that effect is laid down in the contract. A buyer cannot hold the seller responsible and liable if the goods turn out to be defective or do not prove to be useful for the purpose for which they are purchased or if the buyer makes any mistake in assessing the quality of goods purchased. Thus it is for the buyer to ensure himself only at the time only at the time of purchase that goods confirm his own requirements. 

In one case, A sent some pigs to market to be sold by auction. B purchased the goods with all its faults and errors of description. A knew that pigs were suffering from fever but he did not disclose the same to B. it was held in the case that there was no implied warranty by A and the sale was good and A was not liable for any damages.
Caveat emptor does not mean either in law or in Latin that the buyer must take chances, it means that the buyer must take care. 

In the good olden days the principle of ‘Caveat emptor’, which meant buyer beware governed the relationship between seller and the buyer. In the era of open markets buyer and seller came face to face, seller exhibited his goods, and buyer thoroughly examined them and then purchased them. It was assumed that he would use all care and skill while entering into transaction. The maxim relieved the seller of the obligation to make disclosure about the quality of the product. In addition, the personal relation between the buyer and the seller was one of the major factors in their relations. 

According to this rule, the buyer himself should be careful while purchasing the goods suit his purpose. If the goods are subsequently found to be unsuitable for the purpose, he cannot blame the seller for the same. The buyer ordered for hessian cloth without specifying the purpose for which he wanted the same. It was in fact needed for packing. Because of unnatural smell, it was unsuitable for that purpose. It was held that buyer had no right to reject the same, even if it did not serve his purpose.

Exception to this doctrine
 

In case of sale by description
Section 15  lays down the condition which is implied by law in a sale by description. Section 15 says, “Where there is a contract for sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description.” The term ‘correspond to description’ as used in Section 15 means the buyer must get the article or goods that was described in the contract. The buyer must have contracted for them as described so that the falsity of the description made the goods substantially different things from those that were described so as to constitute a failure of consideration. 
Goods are to be sold by description when the contract contains a description of the goods to be supplied. Such description may be in terms of the physical characteristics of the goods or may simply mention the trade mark, trade name, brand or label under which they are usually sold. A sale of 50 boxes of X brand soap or of 10 tons of Y brand mustard oil, is a sale of goods by description. In such cases the goods supplied must be the same as the goods described.

Lord Blackburn stated the general principle contained in section 15 in the following words, “If you contract to sell peas you cannot oblige a party to by beans. If the description of the article tendered is different in any respect, it is not the article bargained or, and the other party is not bound to take it.” 

The expression “description” in the phrase “sale by description” usually means a particular class of goods. It also includes the statement which may be essential to the identity of the goods contracted for, e.g., as to quality of fitness, place of origin, or of shipment, time of dispatch or delivery, mode of packing, etc.  Sale by describing as ‘new’ is in every case a question of fact and degree. Where the parts of a car are damaged by fire and the car is not capable of restoration to what can be described as ‘new’ condition, the plantiff is entitled to rescind the contract. 

A contract for the sale of 3,000 tins of peaches described the tins as being packed in cases of 30. When they arrived the tins were packed in cases of 24 although the agreed overall number of tins was supplied. It was held that the purchaser was entitled to reject the goods as they were not as described.  

The claimant purchased a painting from the defendant for £6,000. The painting was described in an auction catalogue as being by German impressionist artist Gabrielle Munter. Both the buyers and the sellers were London art dealers. The sellers were not experts on German paintings whilst the buyers specialized in German paintings. The purchasers sent their experts to inspect the painting before agreeing to purchase. After the sale the buyers discovered that the painting was a fake and worth less than £100. They brought an action based on s.13 Sale of Goods Act in that the painting was not as described. Held: By sending their experts to inspect the painting this meant the sale was no longer by description. S.13 only applies to goods sold by description and therefore the buyers had no protection. 

A contract for the sale of a quantity of wooden staves for making barrels described the staves as being 1/2 an inch thick. Some of the staves delivered were not 1/2 an inch thick but very slightly out. There was nothing wrong with the quality of the wood and they could still be used for the intended purpose of making barrels. The buyer rejected the goods. Lord Atkin observed:  if the written contract specifies conditions of weight, measurement, and the like, those conditions must be complied with. 

Sale by sample and description

 
Sometimes there may be a difference between the sample shown and the description of the goods. In such a case, the fact that the goods supplied conform to the sample but did not agree with the description, entitle the buyer to reject the goods because the fundamental condition in every contract is that the good should correspond to description.
Nichol showed samples of oil to Godts. He described the oil as "Foreign refined rape oil, warranted only equal to samples?. Godts entered into a written contract to buy 33 tons. The oil corresponded with the sample, but not the description. It was a mixture of rape and hemp oil. Godts refused to accept or pay the goods. The jury found that the admixture was not known not commercially known as "foreign refined rape oil", and therefore, it was held that since the oil supplied was not in accordance with description, the buyer was entitled to recover damages. 

Condition as to quality or fitness

 
In a contract for sale, normally there is no implied condition as to quality or fitness of those goods for any particular purpose. The buyer has to examine and satisfy himself whether the goods or article will be suitable for the purpose for which he requires the same. The purpose for which goods are required is implied of these particular goods are purchased from a dealer dealing in those particular goods and if the goods subsequently turn out to be unfit for the purpose required, they can be rejected. Particular purpose for which goods are required is to be disclosed where goods can be used for more than one purpose.

Where a buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply (whether he is the manufacturer or producer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose.  In a case buyer purchased a radio-set for a specific purpose. It could easily be said that the vendor sold this radio set for that specific purpose. It has, therefore to be of a certain quality. If it is not of that quality and it is not fit for such purpose, then the law implies a promise from the vendor that he will supply to the purchaser an article of that quality and reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is required. The seller’s liability in such cases to supply goods that are reasonably fit an absolute one.

It is not necessary that the buyer should expressly or by implication make known to the seller a particular purpose. The words by implication in Sec 16(1) clearly indicate that the communication of the purpose to the seller need not be expressed in words. It may be inferred from the description of the goods given by the buyer to the seller or from the circumstances of the case. The buyer must rely on the seller’s skill or judgment. When the good can be used for only one purpose, the purpose need not be told to the seller as he is deemed to know the same. In these cases there is a implied condition  as to quality of fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed by usage or trade. The plaintiff, who was a draper and had no special knowledge of hot water bottles, went to a chemist and asked for a "hot water bottle". The defendant sold him a rubber bottle, saying that it would stand hot but not boiling water. The plaintiff had purchased the bottle for his wife and while she was using, it burst and injured her. Since the bottle was not fit for tat ‘particular purpose’ so it was held, which the bottle supplied, must be fit for use as a hot water bottle. 

There was a contract to supply 500 tons of coal for the S.S. "Manchester Importer". The coal supplied was found to be unfit for this ship. It was held that the buyer was entitled to get damages. in this case it was held that a buyer relies on the skill of the seller when he makes known to him the purpose for which the goods are required and the circumstances are such that any reasonable seller would take it that his judgment is being relied upon.
W supplied J with tinned salmon which was poisonous. J fell ill and his wife died as a result of eating the salmon. Held, there was an implied' condition of fitness because the seller obviously knew that the salmon was being purchased for consumption. The condition was violated by the grocer and damages were recoverable. 

In the case of eatables or foodstuffs and provisions, in addition to the implied condition that the goods shall be wholesome, pure, unadulterated, and also suitable for consumption at time of sale. For Example, M a milk dealer supplied F with milk which was consumed by F and his family. The milk contained germs of typhoid. F's wife was infected and died. The purpose for which the milk was to be used was, by implication, made known to the seller. Held, there was a breach of an implied condition of fitness and A was liable to pay damages. 

Kendall v Lillico  concerned a contract for Brazilian ground nuts extract, sold for the purpose of compounding into feed stuffs for cattle and poultry. The buyer used the goods for feeding his turkeys. This proved to be fatal. Evidence showed the extract was not dangerous to cattle. There was a breach of condition.
 

Proviso to 16(1)

When the buyer buys an article by specifying its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition of the fitness of the goods for any particular purpose. Since the buyer buys the good specifying the trade name, the seller’s only undertaking is that the good shall be of the same trade name as demanded by the buyer. If the buyer mentions the trade name but still relies on the skill and judgment of the seller as regards the suitability of the goods for any particular purpose, the implied condition of fitness will be applicable.

Implied condition of merchantable quality
Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he is the manufacturer or producer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality. 

Merchantable quality: The Act does not give any definition, yet, the word has by long use become a term of art in commercial law. Merchantable quality means that the goods comply with the description in the contract so that to a purchaser buying goods of that description the goods would be good tender.
Goods are of merchantable quality if they are of such a quality and in such condition that a reasonable man, acting reasonably, would, after a full examination, accept them under the circumstances of the case in performance of the offer to buy them, whether he buys for his own use or to sell again. 

Goods cease to be merchantable because of defects rendering them unfit for the purpose for which they are usually sold or merchantability is fulfilled when the goods do not differ from the normal quality of the described goods including under the term quality the state or condition as required by the contract. The goods should be immediately saleable under the description by which they are known in the market.
The defendants ordered for some 600 motor horns of varying description. Some motor-horns were to be delivered by installments. The first installment was accepted but the second contained a substantial quantity of horns which were damaged owing to bad packing. Held, the buyer was entitled to reject the whole installment as the goods were not saleable quality. 

The plaintiff asked for and purchased a bottle of “Stone’s Ginger Wine” from the seller. When the buyer was drawing the cork the bottle broke and at he was injured. It was held that the sale was one by description and since the bottle was not of merchantable quality so the buyer was entitled to recover damages.
In the case , the underwear’s contained certain chemicals which could cause skin disease to a parson wearing them next to skin, it was held that because of such a defect the underwear’s were not of merchantable quality.
A firm of merchants contracted to buy from S some bales of Manila Hemp. This was to arrive from Singapore. The hemp arrived wetted with sea water. It was so damaged that it was not possible to sell it as Manila hemp in the market. The court held that the hemp was not of merchantable quality and it was entitled to be rejected.
Proviso to 16(2)

The proviso, however, divides such defects into two kinds, often called patent and latent defects. Patent defects are those which can be found on examination by a person of ordinary prudence with the exercise of due care and attention. Latent defects are those which cannot be discovered on such examination. There is an implied condition on the seller's part that the goods are free from latent defect.  This condition exists in regard to patent defects as well, if there has been no examination of the goods by the buyer.
If there has been one, the seller's responsibility for them ceases and passes to the buyer. Whether a defect is latent or patent will depend on the nature of the goods and the nature of the defects and the extent of examination needed for its discovery. It is a question of fact in each case. For a case where a latent defect rendered the goods unmerchantable even though there was a thorough examination by the buyer's experts.
The defendants, who were desirous of purchasing a quality of vegetable ghee from plaintiffs who dealt in that commodity, went, by arrangement with plaintiffs, to the warehouse where the ghee, which was in barrels, was stored, for the purpose of inspecting it. Every facility was offered to defendants for inspection; but, being pressed for time, they did not have any of the barrels opened, and merely looked at the outside of the barrels. Defendants purchased the ghee, and after it was delivered they alleged that it was not of merchantable quality. It was held that the defendants had examined the goods and consequently there was no implied condition that the ghee was to be of merchantable quality. 

Implied conditions in sale by sample
A contract of sale is a contract for sale by sample where there is a term in the contract, express or implied, to that effect. Clause 2 provides, In the case of a contract for sale by sample there is an implied condition
(a) that the bulk shall corresponded with the sample in quality.
(b) that the shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample.
(c) that the goods shall be free from any defect, rendering them un-merchantable, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the good.

A contract of sample by sale implies an undertaking by the seller that the goods to be supplied will be similar to the sample. If the goods supplied do not correspond with the sample, it amounts to breach of implied condition by the seller, and the buyer, in such a case is entitled to reject the goods. If the buyer instead of rejecting the goods accepts the good or in part thereof, when the contract is not severable, then his only remedy is to claim damages.  

If the seller doesn’t afford an opportunity to the buyer to compare the bulk with the sample at a proper and convenient time, the buyer has a right to repudiate contract.  The right to inspect goods need not be exercised before taking the delivery. If on exercising the right of examining the goods, the buyer finds that the goods are not in conformity with the sample, he may reject them. It’s not good enough that the good correspond with the sample, it is further necessary that the goods should not have been rendered unmerchantable because of some latent defect in the sample.  

Two parcels of wheat were sold by sample. The buyer went to examine the wheat a week later. One parcel was shown to him but the seller refused to show the other parcel as it was not there. In this case the buyer was not given reasonable opportunity to test the bulk with the sample. The court held that the buyer was entitled to reject the contract of sale.
A agreed to buy some rubber material from B. The sample of the rubber was shown to A. On receiving the rubber material, A found that the measurement of the rubber material was different from that of the sample. The court held that measurement of the rubber material was part of its quality. It was held that the goods did not correspond to the sample. 

The plantiffs who were cloth manufacturers, agreed to supply “mixed worsted coatings” as per certain sample. The goods when supplied corresponded to the sample but subject to some default they were not capable of being converted into coats. It was found that owing to a hidden defect of the cloth which could not be detected on reasonable examination, coats made out of it could not stand ordinary wear and were, therefore unsalable. The buyer was held to be entitled to damage. 

Consent by fraud
In case the consent of the buyer in a contract or sale is taken by fraud on the part of the seller, the entire responsibility for the consequences rests with the seller. Who is liable to compensate the buyer for any loss that he might be put to because of it. The law doesn’t allow a recourse to the doctrine of ‘buyer beware’ to the seller in case of fraud.
 

Conclusion
The effect of the maxim caveat emptor is that a person has no duty to disclose problems voluntarily. Thus, if one person is laboring under a misapprehension, there is no duty on the other person to correct it. However, there are three fundamental exceptions to this rule:
** The representor must not misleadingly tell only part of the truth. Thus, a statement that does not present the whole truth may be regarded as a misrepresentation.
** Where a statement was true when made out but due to a change of circumstances has become false by the time it is acted upon, there is a duty to disclose the truth.
**  Contracts uberrimae fidei (contracts of the utmost good faith) impose a duty of disclosure of all material facts because one party is in a strong position to know the truth. Material fact is something which would influence a reasonable person in making the contract. If one party fails to do this, the contract may be avoided. Where there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties to a contract, a duty of disclosure will arise, for example, solicitor and client, bank manager and client, trustee and beneficiary, and inter-family agreements.
The rule of caveat emptor appeared to play an important role in the past when trade was conducted on local scale and the buyer had every opportunity to examine the goods before buying. However, in the modern context the rigors of the rule have been mitigated because of global dimensions of trade, government legislations on consumer protection, profession management and intense competition and consumer awareness. In fact, the rule of caveat emptor should be replaced by the rule of ‘caveat vendor’ (Let the seller beware).


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
** Bangia, R.K. , Sales of Good Act, 9th edition, Allahabad Law Agency, Delhi, 2012.

** Singh, Avtar, Law of Sales of Good, 7th edition, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2011.

** Padhi, P.K., Legal aspects of business, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2012

** Saharay,Dr. Madhusudan,Textbook on Sale of Goods and Hire Purchase,Universal Law Publishing,New Delhi 2010.

** Chakraborty , R., Law of sales of good and partnership, 1st edition, Orient Publishing Company, New Delhi 2006.

Internet Sites and Documents
** http://consumereducation.in/publications/1_consumer_orotection_%20in_India.pdf
** http://www.citeman.com/7032-caveat-emptor-buyer-beware.html
** http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1649627/
** http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Statutory-implied-terms.php
** http://www.nadr.co.uk/articles/published/shipping/003CHAPTERTHREETRADE1.pdf
** http://www.icai.org/resource_file/19057comp_sugans_pe2_bcl_cp2.pdf
** http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Rule-of-Caveat-Emptor-5399.asp#.UmuC_vlmiSo
** http://munirahmadmughal.hubpages.com/hub/Caveat-Emptor-Rule

TABLE OF CASES
** Arcos v Ranaason [1933] AC 470
** Bajrangi Parshad v. Provincial Govt. C. P. and Berar, AIR 1951 Nag 301
** Bows v. Shan.
** Bristol Tramway Co. v. Fiat Motors Ltd., (1910) 2 KB 831
** Drummond v. Van Ingen, (1887) 12 A.C. 284
** E & S Ruben Ltd v.Fair Bros, 1949 1K.B.254.
** Frost v. Aylesbury Diary Co., (1905) 1 K.B. 608.
** Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd., (1954) 1 Q.B. 598
** Harlington & Leinster v. Christopher Hull Fine Art, [1991] 1 QB 564
** Jackson vs. Watson & Sons.
** Jacksone v. Rotax Motor and Cycle Co., (1910) 2 K.B. 937.
** Jones v. Just, 1868LR 3 QB 197, B & Co
** Kendall v Lillico ,[1969] 2 A.C. 31.
** Lorymer v. Smith., (1882) 1 B & C 1
** Manchester Lines v. Rea Ltd., 1922 A.C. 74.
** Morelli v. Fitch and Gibbons., (1928) 2 K.B. 636
** National Traders v. Hindustan Soap Works, AIR 1959 Mad 112.
** Nichol v. Godts, 1854 10 Ex. 191
** Priest v. Last, 1903 2 K.B. 148.
** Raynham Farm Co. Ltd. v. Symbol Motor Corpn. Ltd, 1987 BTLC 157 (QBT)
** Re Andrew Yule & Co., AIR 1932 Cal. 879
** Re Moore & Landauer [1921] 2 KB 519
** Sorabji Hormusha Joshi And Co. v. V.M. Ismail And Anr., AIR 1960 Mad 520.
** Summer Permain and Co., Ltd. v. Webb and Co., Ltd., (1922) 1 KB
** Wallis v. Russell (1902) 21 R 585
** Ward v. Hobbs, 1878

The work contained herein is an amalgamation of the remarkable work of various authors and I am thankful to them for their publications that have helped me prepare this research paper to the best of my abilities.

Indian Citizenship

INTRODUCTION

Though India is a Federation having two levels of government, Centre and the States – there is only a single citizenship, viz., the Indian citizenship, and so no separate state citizenship.

Arts. 5 to 11 in the Constitution lay down as to who are the citizens of India at the commencement of the constitution i.e. on January 26, 1950. As regards the citizenship of India subsequent to the commencement of the Constitution, the provisions are contained in the Citizenship Act. 1955 enacted by the Union Parliament under Article 11.

CITIZEN, CITIZENSHIP

A citizen is a person who enjoys full civil and political rights in that State. Citizenship simply means the membership of the political community or the State. Citizenship is a legal status determined by the specific rights and duties. It carries with it certain advantages. There are certain Fundamental Rights which are available only to the citizens of India.[1] Citizenship carries with it certain obligations as well. For example, the Fundamental Duties contained in Article 51-A are addressed to the citizens of India only. The concept of Indian citizenship did not exist prior to November 26, 1949, when the constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution, bringing into force, at once, the provisions related to citizenship.

ALIEN AND FOREIGNER

Broadly speaking, a person is an alien if he is not the citizen of that State. The Foreigner Act 1946 did not use the term alien. Section 2(a) of the Act defined the term ‘foreigner’. The Act was amended in 1957. Under the amendment Act, the term foreigner is defined to mean the same thing as alien i.e., a person who is not a citizen of India. 

Aliens are either resident aliens or non-resident aliens. Resident aliens are those persons, who for the time being reside within the territory of the State, and so possess a temporary and territorial title to State- membership. They stand on a lower level, as compared to citizens in the scale of legal rights, though they have claim to the protection of the laws and government of the State. The non-resident aliens, possess no title of membership and stand altogether outside the body politic.

Friendly aliens are those persons who are not enemy aliens. An enemy alien is a person who is a subject of a State at war with India. It also includes Indian subjects voluntarily residing in or trading with, an enemy country. While, a friendly alien residing in India may be conferred with full civil rights[2] as opposed to political rights, an enemy alien is not held entitled to such rights.[3]

CITIZENSHIP OF INDIA AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

The problem related to Citizenship of India, at the time of independence was tackled by the three-fold provisions made in the Constitution. A person, at the commencement of the Constitution, could be a citizen of India in the following ways-

·         By domicile

·         By migration

·         By registration

1.      Citizenship by domicile (Article 5) - At the commencement of this Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and

Ø  who was born in the territory of India; or 

Ø  either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or 

Ø  who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India.

Conditions specified are alternative and any one of them needs to be fulfilled by a person having domicile in India, to be a citizen of India.

The expression territory of India meant the territory of India as is defined under Article 1(3), at the commencement of the Constitution.

Domicile

The term ‘domicile’ is not defined in the Constitution. Ordinarily, it means the home or the place where a person resides with the intention to retain himself there permanently and without any present intention to remove himself there from.

Two elements are necessary for constituting the domicile of a person-

1.      actual residence at that place, and

2.      the present intention to retain there permanently

Thus, there must be both factum and animus, to constitute the existence of domicile, for neither mere residence nor mere intention to reside at the place is sufficient to constitute the domicile of the person. The burden to prove intention lay on the petitioner. In Mohd. Raza v. State of Bombay,[4] the appellant came to India in 1938 and stayed here till 1945. He went for a pilgrimage to Iraq and on his return he registered himself as a foreigner. He worked as a cashier in India. In 1957, his request for extension of his stay was rejected as his intention was not to make India his permanent residence.

Types of Domicile

Domicile of origin – Every person has a domicile at his birth called domicile of origin.[5] The domicile of origin of every person of legitimate birth is the place where, at the time of birth his father is domiciled. The domicile of origin of an illegitimate child is the place where, at the time of birth his mother in domiciled.[6] This continues until he acquires a new domicile.[7] A married woman takes the domicile of her husband on her marriage. [8]A widow retains the domicile of her deceased husband till she changes it.

Domicile of choice - Every person of full age and capacity can acquire a domicile of choice by abandoning his domicile of origin. He can acquire the domicile of choice by moving away from the place of his residence to another place and settling there with a definite intension to stay there permanently. The onus to prove that a person has changed his domicile of origin lies upon him.[9]

Single Domicile in India

India has one citizenship only and no separate State citizenship. A question has, however arisen whether the same is true for domicile or not. In D.P Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat,[10] the majority of the Supreme Court held the view, that, it was theoretically possible to have a separate State domicile in India because domicile has the reference to the system of law by which the person is governed. In Pradeep Jain v. Union of India,[11] the Supreme Court has repudiated the notion of State Domicile. The Court has asserted that there is only one domicile, namely domicile in India. India has one single indivisible system with a single unified justicing system having the Supreme Court at the apex of the hierarchy.[12]

2.      Citizenship by Migration (Article 6)

The independence of India was accompanied by a large scale migration of people from Pakistan. As there people belonged to the territory which ceased to be a part of India after the Independence, they could not be regarded as Indian citizens under Art. 5 and, therefore, special provisions had to be made for them in the Constitution.

Article 6 is applicable to persons of Indian origin, i.e. those who themselves were born in the territory of India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935, or either of their parents or any of their grandparents were born in India and, in addition, fulfilled either of the following conditions:

                                i.            In case they migrated to India before July 19, 1948, they had been ordinarily resident in India since the date of their migration; or

                              ii.            In case they migrated on or after July 19. 1948, they had been registered as a citizen of India.

A person could so be registered only if he had been resident in India for atleast six months preceding the date of his application for registration. He can be registered as the citizen of India by an Officer appointed in that behalf by the Government of the Dominion of India.

Article 6 specifies July 19, 1948 for determining the acquisition of citizenship by immigrants from Pakistan. It was on this date that the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1948. Promulgated by the Governor-General of India, came into force.

Citizenship of migrants to Pakistan (Article 7)

Article 7 gives even more specification to article 5 and 6 i.e. a person who might be called citizens as per these articles may be disqualified by article 7, It states that:-Notwithstanding anything in articles 5 and 6, a person who has after the first day of March,1947,migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India: Provided that nothing in this article shall apply to a person who, after having so migrated to the territory now included in Pakistan, has returned to the territory of India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by or under the authority of any law and every such person shall for the purposes of clause (b) of article 6 be deemed to have migrated to the territory of India after the nineteenth day of July, 1948

Migrants returning back to India

Proviso to Article 7 contains an exception in favor of persons who having migrated to Pakistan, returned back to India. It provided that a person, who after having migrated to Pakistan after March 1, 1947 returns to India under a permit of resettlement or for permanent return, Indian citizenship would be vested in him under Art. 6(b), as if he had migrated to India after July 19, 1948. The ‘migration’ referred to in this article refers to the migration between March 1,1947 and January 26, 1950 and does not extend to migration after that date, which will be governed by the Citizenship Act,1955.[13]

Migration

The concept of ‘domicile’ or permanent residence does not enter into the word ‘migration’, and a movement from India to Pakistan,  if it was not fir a specific period of purpose and not for a short and limited period, would constitute migration under Art. 7.[14] It follows that even a minor or married woman may be held to have migrated, even though they may not acquire domicile of choice.[15]

Departure from India to Pakistan for the purpose of employment or labor[16] for an indefinite period constitutes migration. Movement to Pakistan by a Government servant who opted for Pakistan is ‘migration’ within the meaning of Art. 7.[17] The fact that the person acquired no property there while he possessed considerable property in India,[18] or that he did not remove his parents, are not relevant considerations for determining the question of migration.

3.      Citizenship by Registration (Article 8)

Notwithstanding anything in article 5, any person who or either of whose parents or any of whose grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted), and who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India as so defined shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as a citizen of India by the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where he is for the time being residing on an application made by him therefore to such diplomatic or consular representative, whether before or after the commencement of this Constitution, in the form and manner  prescribed by the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of India.

Article 8 is to cover overseas Indians having no domicile in the territory of India. Under article 8, unlike Articles 5 and 6, a person could become a citizen of India, not only at the commencement of the Constitution but also subsequent to such commencement.

No Dual Citizenship (Article 9)

Under Art.9, no person can be a citizen of India under Articles 5, 6 and 8, if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign country. This provision thus recognizes the principle that no Indian citizen can claim a dual or plural citizenship. Cases of loss of Indian citizenship by reason of acquisition of the citizenship of a foreign State since January 26, 1950 are governed by section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955.[19]

The question whether an Indian Citizen has acquires the citizenship of a foreign country, is one for the determination by the Central Government and not by the Court.[20] Mere proof of the fact that a person has obtained a passport from a foreign country, is not sufficient, to order his deportation from India or prosecute him, unless there has been a decision of the Central Government in this respect. The enquiry by the Central Government in such a matter is quasi-judicial.[21]

Continuance of the right of citizenship (Article 10)

Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions of this Part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen.

In Ebrahim Wazir v. State of Bombay,[22] the appellant, a citizen of India, having entered India from Pakistan without a permit, was ordered to be removed to Pakistan, under Section 7 of the Influx from Pakistan(Control) Act, 1949. The Supreme Court held Section 7 ultra vires the Parliament because it allowed the forcible removal of an Indian citizen from India, destroying his right of Citizenship.

Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law (Article 11)

Though there are certain provisions relating to citizenship but the parliament along with the Citizenship Act, 1955 shall have effect on the citizenship regulations:-Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship. In absence of a law expressly made under Article 11,the right of citizenship which a person had acquired under Part II, could not be destroyed by an Act made for a different purpose.

Acquisition of Citizenship of India after the Commencement of the Constitution (i.e. after 26^th January, 1950)

The Citizenship Act, 1955 provides the following modes of acquiring Indian citizenship after the commencement of the Constitution –

1.      Citizenship by Birth (Section 3)

Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 provides that every person born in India on or after 26^th January, 1950, shall be a citizen of India by birth. However, no such person as above said shall be a citizen of India, if at the time of his birth –

(a)    His father (or mother)[23] possesses such immunity from suits and legal processes as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power and (he or she, as the case may be)[24] is not an Indian citizen; or

(b)   His father (or mother)[25] is an enemy alien and his birth takes place in a territory then under enemy occupation.

The Citizenship Act, 1955 has been amended by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1986 with the object of making the acquisition of citizenship of India somewhat difficult. The object is to prevent persons coming to India from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and other African countries from becoming citizens of India. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 has amended Section 3 to the effect that a person born in India on or after the commencement of this Amendment Act (i.e. 3-12-2004) shall be a citizen of India by birth if at the time of birth

v Both of his parents are citizens of India; or

v One of whose parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant[26]

2.      Citizenship by Descent (Section 4)

Section 4 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 provides that a person born outside India on or after 26^th January, 1950, shall be a citizen of India by descent, if , at the time of his birth, his father (either of his parents)[27] is a citizen of India. However, if the father (parent)[28] of such a person is himself a citizen of India by descent, then, such a person shall not be a citizen of India unless-

(a)    His birth is registered at the Indian Consulate, or

(b)   His father is, at the time of his birth, in the service under a Government of India,

The birth of such a person can be registered, with the Indian Consulate, within one year of its occurrence or within one year of the commencement of the Citizenship Act, 1955, or within such period as extended by the Government of India. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 has amended Section 4 to the effect that the birth of such a person as aforesaid shall not be registered on or after the commencement of this Amendment Act, unless the parents of such person declare, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, that the minor does not hold the passport of another country.

A minor, who is a citizen of India by virtue of this Section and is also a citizen of any other country, shall cease to be a citizen of India if he does not renounce the citizenship or nationality of another country, within six months of attaining full age.[29]

3.       

Citizenship by Registration (Section 5)

Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 provides for the registration of certain categories of persons as citizens of India. This Section lays down that the prescribed authority may, on application made in this behalf, register as citizen of India, any person, who is not a citizen by virtue of any provision of the Constitution or by virtue of any other provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and belongs to the following categories:

a.         Persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in India for six months (five years)[30](seven years)[31] immediately before making application for registration

b.        Persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in any country or place outside undivided India

c.         Women, who are or have been married to citizens of India, after the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986, this provision reads as “persons who are, or have been so resident for five years (seven years)[32] immediately before making as application for registration

d.        Minor children whose both parents are Indian citizens.

e.         Persons of full age who’s both parents are registered as citizens of India mentioned in the First Schedule to the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Category (e) is substituted by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 by the following categories:

(e) a person of full age and capacity whose parents are registered as citizens of India under clause (a) of this sub-section or sub-section (1) of Section 6;

[33][(f) a person of full age and capacity, who or either of his parents were either citizen of Independent India and has been residing in India for one year immediately before making an application for registration;

(g) a person of full age and capacity who has been registered as an overseas citizen  of India for 5 years and residing in India for two year before making application for registration.

For the purpose of clauses (a) and (c) above, an applicant shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident in India if,-

v  If he has resided in India throughout the period of twelve months immediately before making an application for registration; and

v  He has resided in India during the eight years immediately preceding the said period of twelve months for not less than six years.

For the purpose of this Section, a person shall be deemed to be Indian origin if he or either of his parents was born in undivided India or such other territory which became part of India after 15^th day of August, 1947. The Central Government, for reasons recorded in writing, may grant exemption from the residential requirement under clause (c) of sub-section (1) to any person or a class of persons, if it is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary to do so.]

Section 5 of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1955, further provides that the Central Government may lay down conditions and restrictions subject to which the above categories of persons may be registered. The Government has framed the rules for this purpose. A certificate of registration is conclusive evidence of acquiring Indian Citizenship except when it is proved otherwise.[34]

               Citizenship by Naturalisation (Section 6)

Naturalisation means to adopt to introduce to any other country to admit to citizenship or to naturalise as a citizen of a State. In the context of citizenship, naturalisation is “the act by which rights of citizenship are conferred by a State upon a person who was before, an alien to that State”. Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, provides for the acquisition of citizenship of India by naturalisation. It is applicable to persons of full age and capacity.

The Government of India may, if satisfied that the applicant is qualified for naturalisation, grant him a certificate of naturalisation. The qualifications for naturalisation of a person are as follows-[37]

(a)    That he must not be a citizen of a country where Indian citizens are prevented from becoming citizens of that country by naturalisation;

(b)   That he [38][has renounced the citizenship of his own country according to the law of that country and has notified such renunciation to the Central Government];

(c)    That he has either resided in India or has been in service of Government of India for 12 months immediately preceding the date of making the application of naturalisation;

(d)   That during 7 years immediately preceding the above period of 12 months, he has either resided in India or has been in the service of Government or partly the one and partly the other, for period amounting in aggregate to not less than 4 years.

(e)    That he is of good character

(f)    That he has adequate knowledge of at least one language recognized by the constitution of India[39]

(g)   That in the event of a certificate of naturalisation being granted to him, he intends to reside in India or to serve under a Government in India or under an International Organization or under a society, company or body of persons established in India.

The Government of India may waive all or any of the above conditions for naturalisation, in the case of a person who, in its opinion has rendered distinguished service for the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace or human progress generally.[40]

5.      

              Citizenship by Incorporation of Territory (Section 7)

Section 7of the Citizenship Act, 1955 provides that if any territory becomes a part of India, the Central Government, may by orders notified in the Official Gazette, specify the persons who shall be citizens of India by reasons of their connection with that territory, and those persons shall be citizens of India as from the date to be specified in the order.

v Citizenship of Persons covered by Assam Accord 1985

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985 inserted Section 6-A in the Citizenship Act, 1955, to give effect to the Memorandum of Settlement relating to the foreigners’ issue in Assam. This Section provides citizenship of India for persons of Indian origin who had come to Assam before 1^st January 1966.

Those who came to Assam after 1^st January 1966 but before 25^th March, 1971 and have been detected to be foreigners would have to register themselves. Such persons shall have the same rights and obligations as citizens of India. But, such persons shall be deemed to be citizens of India for all purposes as from the date of expiry of a period of ten years from the date on which they have been detected to be foreigners.

Overseas citizenship for persons of indian origin

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003 provides for dual citizenship to Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) residing in 16 countries. As per the Act, the PIOs who seek dual citizenship, would be allowed free movement without visas and be able to own properties, build or invest directly in projects in the country.

Overseas Citizenship of India

“Overseas Citizen of India” means “a person who- (i) is of Indian origin being a citizen of a specified country or (ii) was a citizen of India immediately before becoming a citizen of a specified country and is registered as an Overseas Citizen of India by the Central Government under Sub-Section (i) of Section 7-A.”

Section 7-A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003 provides for registration of the following persons as overseas citizens of India:

a.         Any person of Indian origin of full age and capacity who is a citizen of any country specified in the Fourth Schedule, to the Act;

b.        Any person of full age and capacity who has obtained the citizenship of a specified country on or after the commencement of the Amendment Act 2003 and who was a citizen of India immediately before such commencement;

c.         Any minor children of a person mentioned in the above mentioned categories (a) and (b).

The registration as an overseas citizen of India may be done by the Central Government, subject to such conditions and restrictions including the condition of reciprocity, as may be prescribed by the said Government. The person so registered shall be an overseas citizen of India, as from the date on which he is so registered.[41] No person who has been deprived of his Indian Citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 shall be so registered except by an order of the Central Government.[42]

Rights of Overseas Citizens of India

Section 7-B of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003 provides that the Central Government may by Notification in the Official Gazette specify the rights to which an overseas citizen of India would be entitled, except the rights conferred on Citizen of India under Article 16, 58, 66, 124, 217, Sections 3, 4, 5, 5-A, 6, 16 of the Representation of People Act 1951.

An overseas citizen of India shall not be appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State except for appointment in such services as the Central Government in that behalf, specify by special order.[43]

Termination of Citizenship

Article 9 of the Constitution as already discussed above lays down that a citizen of India, shall cease to be a citizen of India, if he had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State prior to or at the commencement of the Constitution.

As regards the termination of citizenship of India subsequent to the commencement of the Constitution the Citizenship Act 1955 provides the following ways:

v By renunciation  or

v By termination or

v By deprivation

(a)     Renunciation (Section 8)

Renunciation is covered in Section 8 of the Citizenship Act 1955. If any citizen of India of full age and capacity, who is also a citizen or national of another country, makes in the prescribed manner a declaration renouncing his Indian citizenship; the declaration shall be registered by the prescribed authority, and upon such registration, that person shall cease to be a citizen of Indian. Provided that if any such declaration is made during any war in which India may be engaged, registration thereof shall be withheld until the Central government otherwise directs.

Clause (2) of Section 8 provides that where a male person renounces his citizenship every minor of that person shall also cease to be a citizen of India. However such a child may resume Indian citizenship by making a declaration to that effect within one year of his attaining majority.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1992 has amended sub-section (2) of Section 8 to the effect that in place of the words “a male person” the words “a person” shall be substituted. Thus the minor children of a person, whether male or female who renounces his/her Indian citizenship shall also cease to be citizen of India.

Section 7-C of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003 enables an overseas citizen of India of full age and capacity to renounce his overseas citizenship of India by making a declaration and getting it registered with the Central Government. Upon such registration he shall cease to be an overseas citizen of India. Every minor child of such a person shall also cease to be an overseas citizen of India.

(b)     Termination of Citizenship (Section 9)

Section 9 of the Citizenship Act 1955 provides that if a citizen of India voluntarily acquires the citizenship of any other country, subsequent to the commencement of the Constitution he shall cease to be a citizen of India. But, it will not apply to a citizen of India who during any war in which India may be engaged, voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country.

The question falling within section 9 has to be determined to the extent indicated therein, by the Central Government and not by the courts.[44] The question is a question of fact which would require careful scrutiny of evidence.[45]

(c)      Deprivation of Citizenship (Section 10)

The Central government under section 10 of the Indian citizenship Act, 1955 deprives any citizen of Indian Citizenship if it is satisfied that-

          i.      The registration or certificate of naturalization was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact; or

        ii.      That citizen has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Constitution of India as by law established; or

      iii.      That citizen has, during the war in which India may be engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in or associated with, any business that was to his knowledge carried on in such manner as to assist any enemy in that war; or

      iv.      That citizen has, within five years after registration or naturalization, been sentenced in any country to imprisonment for a term of not less than two years; or

        v.      That citizen has been ordinarily resident out of India for a continuous period of seven years, and during that period, has neither been at any time a student of any educational institution in a country outside India or in the service of a Government of India or of an International organization of which India is a member, nor registered annually in the prescribed manner at an Indian consulate his intention to retain his citizenship of India.

      vi.      The Central Government shall not deprive a person of citizenship unless it is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that person should continue to be a citizen of India

Before making an order depriving a person of his Indian citizenship the Central Government is to give to him a written notice containing the grounds on which the order is proposed to be made. If the order is made on any of the above mentioned grounds specified in clauses (i) to (iv), that person might his case referred to a Committee of Inquiry.

As regards the Overseas Citizens of India Section 7-D of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003 provides that the Central Government may by order cancel the registration of such a person on any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) above as also if it’s necessary to do so in the interest of the Sovereignty and Integrity of India, friendly relations with any foreign country or in the interests of the general public.

In Satish Nambiar v. Union of India[46]overseas citizenship granted to the appellant on 18^th May 2006, was cancelled on 14^th February 2007, in the interest of security of India and the relationship with foreign countries. The order was based on the adverse report of the Special Security Agency. Holding that the order of cancellation of OCI was primarily an administrative decision taken with reference to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Bombay High Court said the order could not be examined by the Court.

Issue of National Identity Cards

Section 14-A inserted in the Citizenship Act 1955 as amended by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003 empowers the Central Government to provide for compulsory registration of every citizen of India and issue him a national identity card. For that purpose the Government may establish a National Registration Authority who shall maintain a National Register of Indian Citizens. The details for that purpose are to be prescribed by the Central Government.

Company or Corporation whether a Citizen of India

Though a company is a legal person, it is not a citizen under the constitutional law of India or the Citizenship Act, 1955. The reason as to why a company cannot be treated as a citizen is that citizenship is available to individuals or natural persons only and not to juristic persons.

The question whether a corporation is a citizen was decided by the Supreme Court in State Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer[47], wherein it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the corporation was incorporated under the Companies Act and all shares were held by the President of India and two Secretaries in their official capacities and since all these three persons were citizens of India, the corporation should also be treated as a citizen. Rejecting the plea putforth by the petitioners the Supreme Court refused to recognize the corporation as a citizen. The court observed: “.......if all of them (i.e. members) are citizens of India, the company does not become a citizen of India any more than, if all are married, the company would be a married person.”

In Chiranjilal Chaudhari v. Union of India [1951] 21 Comp. CAS. 33(SC),the Supreme Court held that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are available not merely to individual citizens but to corporate bodies as well except where the language of the provision or the nature of the right compels the interference that they are applicable only to natural persons.

Similarly in Bennet Coleman Comp. v. Union of India[1972] S.C.C. 788,806, the Supreme Court extended the rule by stating “it is now clear that the fundamental rights of shareholders as citizens are not lost when they associate to form the company. When their fundamental rights as shareholders are impaired by State action, their rights as shareholders are protected the reason is that the shareholders’ rights are equally and necessarily affected if the rights of the company are affected.

---

[1] See articles 15, 16, 19, 29,30 of the Constitution.

[2] For example, rights secured by Articles 14, 20, 22 of Indian Constitution are available to aliens also.

[3] See, e.g., Clause 3(a) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, infra, 365

[4] AIR 1966 SC 1436

[5] Central Bank of India v.  Ram Narain, AIR 1955 SC 36

[6] Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 Pb. 250

[7] Central Bank of India v.  Ram Narain, AIR 1955 SC 36

[8] Karmun Nisa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 Nag 6

[9] Kedar Pandey v. Narain Bikram Sah, AIR 1966 SC 160

[10] AIR 1955 SC 334

[11] AIR 1984 SC 1420

[12] Narayandas v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 Bom 68

[13] State of A.P v.  Khader Abdul, AIR 1961 SC 1467

[14] Kulathil Mammu v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1614

[15] State of Bihar v.  Amar Singh, AIR 1955 (1) SCR 1259

[16] Kulathil Mammu v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1614

[17] Aslam Khan v. Fazal Haque Khan, AIR 1959 All. 79

[18] Attaur Rahaman v. State of M.P.,  AIR 1951 Nag. 43

[19] State of U.P v. Shah Md. , (1969) II SCWR 223

[20] State of Andhra Pradesh v. Khader, AIR 1961 SC 1468

[21] Lal Babu Hussain v. Electoral Registration Officer, AIR 1995 SC 810

[22] AIR 1954 SC 229

[23] Ins. by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986, (w.e.f. 1-7-1987)

[24] Ibid

[25] Ibid

[26] The expression “illegal migrant” means a foreigner who has entered into India without valid travel documents or having entered into India with such documents, remains therein beyond permitted period of time.

[27] Substituted for the term “father” by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1992 (w.e.f. 10-12-2003)

[28] Ibid

[29] Proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 4 of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003.

[30] Substituted by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1986 for “six months”. (w.e.f. 26-11-1986)

[31] Substituted for “five years” by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003. (w.e.f. 3-12-2004)

[32] Ibid

[33] Inserted by Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003

[34] Hari Shankar Jain v. Sonia Gandhi AIR 2001 SC 3689

[35] Ibid

[36] Madan Lal Arya v. Union of India AIR 2003 All 11

[37] See Third Schedule to the Citizenship Act 1955

[38] There words are substituted for the words “he undertakes to renounce the citizenship of that country in the event of his application for Indian Citizenship being accepted

[39] See the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution, as it stands amended by the Constitution (92^nd amendment) Act 2003.

[40] Proviso to clause(1) of Section 6 of the Citizenship Act 1955

[41] Clause (2) of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003

[42] Clause (3) of Section 7-A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003

[43] Sub-clause (9) of clause (2) of Section 7-A of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003

[44] S.K. Moinuddin v. Government of India AIR 1967 SC 1143

[45] Lal Babu Hussain v. Electoral Registration Officer AIR 1995 SC 1189

[46] AIR 2008 Bom 158

[47] AIR 1963 SC 1811