IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.139 of 2020

In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19109 of 2019
======================================================
Kiran Gupta, wife of Ashok Prasad Gupta, Resident of Ward No. 10, North
Panchayat Manik Chowk, Post Office and Police Station- Manik Chowk,
Block- Runnisaidpur, Distt.- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner- Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State Election Commission through the Secretary, Veer Chand Patel
Marg, Sone Bhawan, Patna, Bihar.
2. The State Election Commissioner State Election Commission, Veer Chand
Patel Marg, Sone Bhawan, Patna, Bihar.
3. The Joint Election Commissioner State Election Commission, Veer Chand
Patel Marg, Sone Bhawan, Patna, Bihar.
4. The Deputy Secretary State Election Commission, Veer Chand Patel Marg,
Sone Bhawan, Patna, Bihar.
5. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, Police Station and District- Sitamarhi.
6. The Sub Divisional Officer,Sadar Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.
7. The Block Development Officer,Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
8. Ranjit Kumar Rai @ Ranjit Rai, Son of Musafir Rai, Resident of Village and
Post Office- Manik Chowk, Police Station- Runnisaidpur, District-
Sitamarhi.

... ... Respondents-Respondent/s

======================================================
Appearance:
For the appellant : Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ranvijay Narain Singh, Advocate
Mr. Jitendra Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ranjeet Choubey, Advocate
For the State Election
Commission : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate
Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.G.
Mr. Pawan Kumar, AC to AG
======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
2/33

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date:12-10-2020

The primary issue for consideration before this Court is

whether the appellant is a citizen of India or not.

2. Elaborately, the following issues arise for

considerations in this appeal: -

(i) Was the State Election Commission empowered to

set aside the appellant’s election under Section
136(1) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 on the
ground of her not being an Indian citizen?
(ii) Whether voluntarily relinquishing Citizenship of
Nepal confers any right of Indian Citizenship upon
the appellant?
(iii) Can the appellant's voter ID Card; PAN Card;
Aadhaar Card; acquiring education or immovable
property in India; having a Bank Account, function as
proof of Indian Citizenship?
(iv) Whether the appellant was disqualified from being
elected to or function as Mukhiya of the Gram
Panchayat in Bihar?
(v) Can the appellant’s status of Statelessness be
remedied as per Indian Law?
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
3/33

3. The present appeal arises from an order and judgment

of the learned Single Judge dated January 21, 2020, by which the

appellant's writ petition assailing the order of the State Election

Commission dated August 30, 2019, stands dismissed. The appellant's

election is set aside on the ground of disqualification contained under

sub-section 1(a) of Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006.

4. The appellant, Kiran Gupta, was born and brought up

in Nepal. On 18th June 2003, she solemnized her marriage with Ashok

Prasad Gupta and after that started permanently residing with him in

India as his wife. It is not in dispute that after her marriage, she, (a)

got her name entered into the voters list prepared in the year 2008 for

elections to the Assembly of Bihar; (b)in her name she has (i) an

account with a bank in India, (ii) a Pan Card issued by the Income

Tax Department, and (iii) an Aadhaar Card; (c) names of her children

born out of the wedlock are registered in India under the Registration

of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the respective Rules framed

thereunder; (d) pursued her higher education in India; (e) purchased

an immovable property in India, vide sale deed dated 12 th December

2017. The sale stands recorded with an entry of mutation in her name

for which also she paid fee/rent to the Government of Bihar; and (g)

relinquished her Nepali Citizenship on February 24, 2016.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
4/33

5. The issue of her nationality became the subject matter

of challenge in the year 2018 after she was elected as a Mukhiya of

Gram Panchayat, ManikChouk, Block-Runnisaidpur, District-

Sitamarhi.

6. Ranjit Kumar Rai @ Ranjit Rai, (private respondent

No.8) challenged her election on the ground of disqualification which

she entailed under sub-section 1(a) of Section 136 of the Bihar

Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat

Act').

7. Vide order dated 30thAugust 2019, the competent

authority, i.e., The State Election Commission, set aside her election,

which action she challenged by way of a writ petition filed under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single

Judge, vide impugned judgment 21stJanuary 2020, passed in CWJC

No.19109 of 2019 titled Kiran Gupta Versus the State Election

Commission & Ors., dismissed her petition by relying upon the

provisions of Articles 173 and 243F of the Constitution of India and

the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955.The Court held the appellant to have

voluntarily relinquished her Citizenship of Nepal on February 24,

2016, and as such not being a citizen of India, entailed disqualification

under the Panchayat Act.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
5/33

9. The Issue No. (i) is well settled. The State Election

Commission was empowered to set aside the appellant’s election

under Section 136 (1) of the Panchayat Act. The decision rendered by

this Court in Dhanwanti Devi v. The State Election Commission,

2012 (1) PLJR 296, relied upon by the appellant, does not apply in the

given facts. The appellant herself acknowledged that she was born and

raised in Nepal before her marriage in 2003, and was not an Indian

citizen by birth or descent under Sections 3 and 4 of the Citizenship

Act, 1955. Based on the facts admitted by the appellant herself, the

State Election Commission was empowered to set aside her election

as Mukhiya.

10. We need not labour any further for even otherwise the

issue is no longer res Integra after the decision of the Full Bench of

this Court in Rajani Kumari Versus State Election Commission

through its Secretary &Ors. (2019) 4 PLJR 673,wherein it held as

under:

“We are in agreement that the State Election

Commission has got power under sub-section(2) of
Section 18 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and sub-
section(2) of Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act,
2006 to consider an issue of pre or post election
disqualification of a candidate subject to a caution which
we have pointed out in our judgments in respect of a case
which is in the nature of a purely election dispute and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
6/33

then a matter which cannot be decided without

adducement of evidence by a competent court and
authority in accordance with Law. The State Election
Commission shall entertain and consider the
'disqualification' issues on the basis of the unimpeachable
materials placed before him. Whether a complaint
brought before the Commission either suo-moto or by
any other person, the Commission shall at the first
instance enquire whether it is a purely election dispute
and only when it is found that the dispute brought before
it is not a purely election dispute, the Commission shall
proceed to consider the same on the basis of
unimpeachable materials. Whenever a disputed question
of facts and a contentious issue is brought before the
Commission as a ground and basis to render a candidate
disqualified, the Commission would be required to
relegate the parties to a competent court/tribunal or a fact
finding body competent to decide such contentious issues
after taking evidences and till such time the Commission
shall not take a decision on such complaint either suo-
moto or otherwise.”
(Emphasis supplied)

11. We now deal with Issues No.(ii) & (iv).

Constitution Of India

12. Part II of the Constitution of India deals with the

Citizenship. It comprises Articles 5 to 11.

13. Article 5 reads as under: -

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
7/33

“5. Citizenship at the commencement of the

Constitution. —At the commencement of this Constitution
every person who has his domicile in the territory of India
and—
(a) who was born in the territory of India; or
(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of
India; or
(c) 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.”

14. Articles 6 and 7 deal with the rights of Citizenship of

individual persons, who migrated to India from Pakistan with which

we are not concerned. We are also not concerned with Article 8, for it

is not the appellant's case that though either of her parents or

grandparents were born in India but were ordinarily residing in any

country outside India. Article 9 is also not relevant since the appellant

has voluntarily not acquired Citizenship of any foreign State. For the

adjudication of issue, related Articles 10 and 11 are reproduced as

under: -

“10. Continuance of the rights of Citizenship.—

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.

11. Parliament to regulate the right of Citizenship

by law.—Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part
shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
8/33

provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of

Citizenship and all other matters relating to Citizenship.”

15. A conjoint reading of these Articles lead to a conclusion

of Article 10 providing right for the continuance of Citizenship, but

subject to the provisions of any law, which the Parliament may make.

16. Noticeably, under Article 11, the Indian Parliament has

enacted the Citizenship Act of 1955 (hereinafter defined as the

Citizenship Act) providing for the acquisition of Citizenship after the

commencement of the Constitution of India.

17. Chapter III of Part VI of the Constitution of India deals

with the Constitution of Legislature in States. Under Article 173, only

a citizen of India is qualified to be chosen to fill up a seat in the

Legislature of the State.

18. Part IX of the Constitution of India deals with the

Panchayats, including its composition. Article 243F contained therein

reads as under: -

“243-F. Disqualifications for membership. —(1)

A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and
for being, a member of a Panchayat—
(a) if he is so disqualified by or under any law for
the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the
Legislature of the State concerned:
Provided that no persons shall be disqualified on
the ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if
he has attained the age of twenty-one years.
(b) if he is so disqualified by or under any law
made by the Legislature of the State.
(2) If any question arises as to whether a member
of a Panchayat has become subject to any of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
9/33

disqualifications mentioned in clause (1), the question

shall be referred for the decision of such authority and in
such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by Law,
provide.”
(Emphasis supplied)

19. Noticeably, person disqualified under the law in force,

entails disqualification for being chosen as a member of a Panchayat,

which question shall be referred to an authority in a manner provided

by law.

Provisions Of The Panchayat Act

20. At this juncture, one may note the provisions of the

Panchayat Act under which elections to the post of Mukhiya were

held. Chapter III thereof deals with the Gram Panchayat. By virtue of

Section 15, Mukhiya is to be elected directly by the voters enrolled in

the Voters’ list of the respective Gram Panchayat.

21. Chapter VII deals with the elections. As per Section

123, the State Election Commission is charged with the

superintendence, direction and control of preparation of electoral

rolls for, and conduct of, all elections to the Panchayat bodies in the

State of Bihar. The relevant portion of Sections 135 and 136 of the

Panchayat Act, with which we are concerned, read as follows:

“135. Qualification for Membership- Every person

whose name is in the list of voters of any Panchayat
constituency shall unless disqualified under this Act or
any other law for the time being in force, be qualified to
be elected as a member or office bearer of the Panchayat :
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
10/33

Provided that in the case of seats reserved for

Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Backward
Classes or Women, no person who is not a member of any
of the Schedule Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Backward
Classes or is not a woman, as the case may be, shall be
qualified to be elected to such seat.
136. Disqualification for Membership - (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person
shall be disqualified for election or after election for
holding the post as Mukhiya, member of the Gram
Panchayat, Sarpanch, Panch of the Gram Katchahri,
member of the Panchayat Samiti and member of Zila
Parishad, if such person—
(a)is not a citizen of India.
(b)is so disqualified by or under any law for the time
being in force for the purposes of elections to the
Legislature of the State:
Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the
ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he
has attained the age of twenty-one years; ………….”
(Emphasis supplied)

22. Reading of Section 135 of the Panchayat Act makes it

clear that every person whose name is entered in the voters' list of

any Panchayat constituency, unless disqualified under the Act or

any other provisional law, shall be qualified to be elected as a

member or office-bearer of the Panchayat.

23. But Section 136 of the Panchayat Act commences with

a non-obstante clause. The expression used is 'notwithstanding

anything contained in this Act'. If a person entails any one of the

disqualifications also enumerated in the said Section, a person will

entail disqualification. The language used is clear. For holding the

post of a Mukhiya, the person stands disqualified if she/he is not a

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
11/33

citizen of India. The use of the expression "shall" in subsection (1)

of Section 136 indicates that a person who is not a citizen of India

entails immediate disqualification. The statute covers

disqualification from membership both before or after the

elections. The disqualification of membership is for contesting an

election and for holding the post as a Mukhiya. One of the

grounds of disqualification, with which we are concerned, is a

person not being a citizen of India. The expression 'citizen of

India' is not defined under the Panchayat Act. We have seen that

the Constitution of India itself does not confer any right of

Citizenship. Hence, we have to consider the Law framed

thereunder, which is the Citizenship Act enacted under Entry 17 of

List I of the Seventh Schedule for acquisition and determination

of Indian Citizenship.

Provisions of the Citizenship Act

24. The Citizenship Act postulates different situations under

which a person can acquire Citizenship of India. Since it is not a

case of acquisition of Citizenship by birth (Section 3); descent

(Section 4); naturalization (Section 6); persons covered by the

Assam Accord (Section 6A); incorporation of territory (Section 7),

we are required to discuss only Section 5 dealing with the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
12/33

acquisition of Citizenship by registration. The said Section reads

as under:

“5. Citizenship by registration.—(1) Subject to

the provisions of this Section and such other conditions
and restrictions as may be prescribed, the Central
Government may, on an application made in this behalf,
register as a citizen of India any person not being an
illegal migrant who is not already such citizen by virtue
of the Constitution or any other provision of this Act if he
belongs to any of the following categories, namely:—
(a) a person of Indian origin who is ordinarily
resident in India for seven years before making an
application for registration;
(b) a person of Indian origin who is ordinarily
resident in any country or place outside undivided India;
(c) a person who is married to a citizen of India
and is ordinarily resident in India for seven years before
making an application for registration;
(d) minor children of persons who are citizens of
India;
(e) a person of full age and capacity whose parents
are registered as citizens of India under clause (a) of this
sub-section for sub-section (1) of Section 6;
(f) a person of full age and capacity who, or either
of his parents, was earlier citizen of independent India,
and is ordinarily resident in India for twelve months
immediately before making an application for
registration.
(g) a person of full age and capacity who has been
registered as a [Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder] for
five years, and who [is ordinarily resident in India for
twelve months] before making an application for
registration.
Explanation 1.—For the purposes of clauses (a)
and (c), an applicant shall be deemed to be ordinarily
resident in India if—
(i) he has resided in India throughout the
period of twelve months immediately
before making an application for
registration; and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
13/33

(ii) (ii) he has resided in India during the

eight years immediately preceding the
said period of twelve months for a period
of not less than six years.

Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this sub-

section, a person shall be deemed to be of Indian origin if
he, or either of his parents, was born in undivided India
or in such other territory which became part of India after
the 15th day of August, 1947.
(1-A) The Central Government, if it is satisfied
that special circumstances exist, may after recording the
circumstances in writing, relax the period of twelve
months, specified in clauses (f) and (g) and clause (i) of
Explanation 1 of sub-section (1), up to a maximum of
thirty days which may be in different breaks.
(2) No person being of full age shall be registered
as a citizen of India under sub-section (1) until he has
taken the oath of allegiance in the form specified in the
Second Schedule.
(3) No person who has renounced, or has been
deprived of, his Indian Citizenship or whose Indian
Citizenship has terminated, under this Act shall be
registered as a citizen of India under sub-section (1)
except by order of the Central Government.
(4) The Central Government may, if satisfied that
there are special circumstances justifying such
registration, cause any minor to be registered as a citizen
of India.
(5) A person registered under this Section shall be
a citizen of India by registration as from the date on
which he is so registered; and a person registered under
the provisions of clause (b)(ii) of Article 6 or Article 8 of
the Constitution shall be deemed to be a citizen of India
by registration as from the commencement of the
Constitution or the date on which he was so registered,
whichever may be later.
(6) If the Central Government is satisfied that
circumstances exist which render it necessary to grant
exemption from the residential requirement under clause
(c) of sub-section (1) to any person or a class of persons,
it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant such
exemption.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
14/33

25. The object of the Citizenship Act is to provide for the

acquisition and determination of Indian Citizenship. Contextually, we

refer that in State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial

Tax Officer &Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1811, the Hon'ble Apex Court

clarified that the Indian Constitution and the Citizenship Act

exhaustively deal with the issue of Citizenship, confined only to a

natural person. Further, nationality and Citizenship are not

interchangeable; terms and expression 'person' under the Act have to

be natural and not legal entities. Extracting the exact observation

would be more apt.

"18. … But the question still remains whether

"nationality" and "citizenship" are interchangeable terms.
"Nationality" has reference to the jural relationship which
may arise for consideration under international law. On
the other hand "citizenship" has reference to the jural
relationship under municipal law. In other words,
nationality determines the civil rights of a person, natural
or artificial, particularly with reference to international
law, whereas Citizenship is intimately connected with
civic rights under municipal law. Hence all citizens are
nationals of a particular State but all nationals may not be
citizens of the State. In other words citizens are those
persons who have full political rights as distinguished
from nationals who may not enjoy full political rights and
are still domiciled in that country….”
"23. … There is also no doubt in our mind that Part
II of the Constitution when it deals with Citizenship
refers to natural persons only. This is further made
absolutely clear by the Citizenship Act which deals with
Citizenship after the Constitution came into force and
confines it only to natural persons. We cannot accept the
argument that there can be citizens of this country who
are neither to be found within the four-corners of the
Citizenship Act. We are of opinion that these two
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
15/33

provisions must be exhaustive of the citizens of this

country, Part II dealing with citizens on the date the
Constitution came into force and the Citizenship Act
dealing with citizens thereafter. We must, therefore, hold
that these two provisions are completely exhaustive of
the citizens of this country and these citizens can only be
natural persons….”

26. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1052, while

dealing with the validity of Section 9 which deals with termination of

Citizenship, held as under:-

“38. The next point to consider is about the

validity of Section 9(2) itself. It is argued that this rule is
ultra vires because it affects the status of Citizenship
conferred on the petitioners and recognized by the
relevant articles of the Constitution, and it is urged that
by depriving the petitioners of the status of Citizenship,
their fundamental rights under Article 19 generally and
particularly the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(e) are
affected. It is not easy to appreciate this argument. As we
have already observed, the scheme of the relevant articles
of Part II which deals with Citizenship clearly suggests
that the status of Citizenship can be adversely affected by
a statute made by the Parliament in exercise of its
legislative powers. It may prima facie sound somewhat
surprising, but it is nevertheless true, that though the
citizens of India are guaranteed the fundamental rights
specified in Article 19 of the Constitution, the status of
Citizenship on which the existence or continuance of the
said rights rests is itself not one of the fundamental rights
guaranteed to anyone. If a law is properly passed by the
Parliament affecting the status of Citizenship of any
citizens in the country, it can be no challenge to the
validity of the said Law that it affects the fundamental
rights of those whose Citizenship is thereby terminated.
Article 19 proceeds on the assumption that the person
who claims the rights guaranteed by it is a citizen of
India. If the basic status of Citizenship is validly
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
16/33

terminated by a Parliamentary statute, the person whose

Citizenship is terminated has no right to claim the
fundamental rights under Article 19. Therefore, in our
opinion, the challenge to Section 9(2) on the ground that
it enables the rule-making authority to make a rule to
deprive the citizenship rights of the petitioners cannot be
sustained.”
(Emphasis supplied)

27. Section 5 of the Citizenship Act deals with such persons

who seek Citizenship by registration. In National Human Rights

Commission Versus State of Arunachal Pradesh and another,

(1996) 1 SCC 742, the Apex Court clarified that a person can be

registered as a Citizen of India only if he satisfies the requirement

contained in Section 5.

28. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was born and

brought up in Nepal. She married her husband, an Indian citizen, in

2003 and has been resident in Indian since. Her acquisition of Indian

Citizenship is governed by the provisions of the Citizenship Act,

1955. The Citizenship Act lays out the different avenues by which a

person can become an Indian citizen. Section 5 lays out the

provisions for Citizenship by registration. Under Section 5(1) (c), a

person who is married to a citizen of India and ordinarily resident in

India for at least seven years may make an application for

Citizenship. A conjoint reading of the Citizenship Act with Entry 17

of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution tells us that it is

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
17/33

only the Central Government which is empowered to confer

Citizenship upon Foreign nationals. Therefore, the adjudicating body

for citizenship acquisition is the Central Government. The petitioner

has admitted that she has not applied for Citizenship under the

Citizenship Act.

29. In our considered view, it is not that anyone or everyone

(person) can, as a matter of right, claim Citizenship of India. Power

and discretion of conferring citizenship vests with the Central

Government which, of course, has to be exercised as per settled

principles of Law. Further, the Section itself categorizes the persons

entitled to exercise their right to file an application requesting for

registration as a citizen of India. Unless decided, the mere filing of an

application does not confer any right of Citizenship. The appellant's

case would fall under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 5. She is

married to a citizen of India and is ordinarily residing in India for the

last seven years. But then, significantly and undisputedly, she never

sought Citizenship by way of registration, more so, after voluntarily

relinquishing her Citizenship of Nepal in February 2016. An oath of

allegiance is necessarily required to be taken by the appellant. Hence,

by her actions and conduct, she precluded herself from being

considered as a citizen under the Citizenship Act.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
18/33

30. Indian citizens can marry a foreign national under the

Special Marriage Act 1954. The foreign national does not become an

Indian citizen on marriage with a citizen under the Act. After the

marriage, the foreign national has an option to get registered as an

Indian citizen. Even then, the person must fulfil the requirement of

residency before they can apply for Indian Citizenship.

31. Mere relinquishment of original Citizenship cannot be

perceived as an intent of seeking Indian Citizenship. The Citizenship

Act does not provide for a scenario where a person residing in India,

upon relinquishing her/his original Citizenship is automatically

considered to be a citizen of India. Possibility of a person, though not

the appellant, migrating to a third country cannot be ruled out. As

such, continuous and uninterrupted stay in India cannot be a factor

determining, in anticipation, of a person choosing to exercise right

seeking Citizenship under the Citizenship Act.

32. The appellant failed to follow the procedure as set out in

the Citizenship Act. Considered thus, neither under the Indian

Constitution nor the Laws framed thereunder, any right of Citizenship

can be said to have conferred upon her. The Issues are answered

accordingly.

33. This now brings us to the ancillary issue No.(iii), as to

whether the documents produced by the appellant can form the basis
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
19/33

of conferring Citizenship upon her or not. The answer in the light of

the discussion cannot be in the affirmative.

34. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v.

Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, lays down certain principles in

dealing with cases of illegal migrants. One of them being that the

burden of proof would be upon the proceedee as he would possess the

necessary documents to show that he is a citizen not only within the

meaning of the provisions of the Constitution of India but also within

the provisions of the Citizenship Act.

35. The principles stand reiterated in Sarbananda Sonowal

(II) v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 174.

36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rupjan Begum v.

Union of India,(2018) 1 SCC 579, held the certificate issued by the

Gram Panchayat Secretary not to be proof of Citizenship, clarifying

further, that such right be determined under the provisions of

Citizenship Act.

37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhanwaroo Khan v.

Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 346, held that long stay in the country

and enrolment in the voters' list would not confer any right on an

alien to continue to stay in the country. Further, elaborated the right

of Citizenship be determined both under the Constitution of India as

also the Citizenship Act.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
20/33

38. This Court in Vijoy Kumar Chaudhary v The State

Election Commissioner (LPA No.510 of 2008) has held that the

voter ID is not sufficient and conclusive evidence of Citizenship.

Enrolment in a voter roll is based on the applicant filing a declaration

with authority via Form 6 under Rules 13(1) and 26 of Registration of

Electors Rules, 1960, stating that they are a citizen of India. The legal

status of the applicant's Citizenship precedes her enrolment on the

electoral rolls. If such a declaration of Citizenship is found to be

false, the applicant is liable for punishment.

39. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v.

Rehmatullah, (1971) 2 SCC 113, has reiterated that the right of a

person of Citizenship is considered under the Citizenship Act and

observed as under:-

“11. In Shuja-Ud-Din v. Union of India [CA No.

294 of 1962, decided on October 30, 1962] this Court
speaking through Gajendragadkar, J., as he then was,
said:
"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. It has also been held by this
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Peer Mohd. (Cri.
Appeal No. 12 of 1961 decided on September 28,
1962) that this question has to be determined by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
21/33

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 Section 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.”
12. In Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim Patel v. State of
Gujarat [ Cr.A.No. 153 of 1961, decided on February 17,
1964 : AIR 1965 SC 810 : (1964) 2 SCJ 461 : (1965)
CrLJ 759] Gajendragadkar, C.J., speaking for a Bench of
five Judges approved the decisions in the cases of Izhar
Ahmad Khan and Syed Mohd. Khan, it being emphasized
that the decision of the Government of India is a
condition precedent to the prosecution by the State of any
person on the basis that he has lost his Citizenship of
India and has acquired that of a foreign country. That an
inquiry under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act can only
be held by the Central Government was again reaffirmed
by this Court in Mohd. Ayub Khan v. Commissioner of
Police, Madras [(1965) 2 SCR 884].”

40. Reading of the Representation of the People Act 1950

shows that non-citizens are disqualified from entering their names in

the voter list. Additionally, under Section 22 it also contemplates a

possibility that an erroneous or defective entry is made in the voter

list and such cases provide the registration officer with authority to

correct the voter list. The Act does not provide that name in the

electoral roll (voter list) would be proof of Citizenship of India.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
22/33

Further, to obtain a Voter identity card and get a name added to the

voter list, a person need only submit - (a) recent passport size photo

(b) proof of residence and (c) proof of age, along with the relevant

Form. Persons are not required to submit any evidence of

Citizenship for this registration. Necessary documents to obtain the

card do not act as proof of Citizenship; it indicates that voter identity

card and name on voter list would not be proof of Citizenship.

41. Mere registration of a person’s name in the voter list,

ipso facto, does not confer Citizenship. On this issue, the only

exception being the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer, (1995)

3 SCC 100. But then, that was peculiar to the attending facts and

circumstances, where action for 'en-masse’ deletion of names of

lakhs of voters, who already exercised their right of franchise, was

influenced by extraneous consideration and without any proper

enquiry.

42. In BinoyViswam v. Union of India &Ors. (2017) 7

SCC 59, the Hon'ble Apex Court elaborately discussed the issue of

necessity, use and benefit of Pan Card issued under the provisions of

Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Even here, the Court

did not hold that possession of such a card not to confer any right of

Citizenship.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
23/33

43. The purpose of the PAN card is to facilitate the payment

of taxes to the Indian State, which foreigners may also be required to

pay.

44. The Gauhati High Court in Mustt. Rabiya Khatun v.

The Union of India [WP(C) 4986/2016]; Jabeda Begum @ Jabeda

Khatun v. The Union of India &Ors.[WP© 7451/2019];Md. Babul

Islam v. Union of India [WP(C) 3547/2016] has held a Pan Card not

to be a piece of valid evidence establishing persons citizenship of

India.

45. This Court in Narendra Narayan Das v. State of

Bihar, AIR 2008 Pat 124,while examining the issue of a citizen of

Nepal, in the backdrop of the Nepal Citizenship Act, held that

Citizenship of a foreigner is determined under the Municipal laws of

the parent country and not the Indian Citizenship Act.

46. The High Court of Bombay in Motimiya Rahimmiya

v. State of Maharashtra,AIR 2004 Bombay 460, held as under:-

“9. In the instant case, the plaintiffs have not

proved their birth in India and that is the basic
requirement of claiming Citizenship. Therefore, the trial
Court has rightly rejected the claim and contentions of
the plaintiffs.
10. Counsel for the respondent-State relied upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 4
SCC 346: AIR 2002 SC 1614, Bhanwaroo Khan v. Union
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
24/33

of India and the another judgment reported in (1999) 9

SCC 281, A.I. Lawyers Forum for Civil
Liberties v. Union of India In the case of Bhanwaroo
Khan, the Supreme Court has held that long stay in
country and enrolment in voters list does not confer any
right to an alien to continue to stay in country. In view of
this and in view of the aforesaid reasons, all the Appeals
are dismissed with Civil Applications. Certified copy
expedited.”

47. The eligibility criteria for obtaining an Aadhaar Card is

residency in India for a period of 182 days or more, not citizenship.

Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 clearly states that an Aadhaar

number or authentication thereof shall not by itself confer any right

of or be proof of Citizenship or domicile of the Aadhaar number

holder. Hence, the appellant cannot rely on her PAN card and

Aadhaar Card as proof of Indian Citizenship.

48. The Registration Act, 1908, which provides for

mutation of names in the case of transfer of property, only requires

that document by which property is transferred be registered (Section

17) along with affixing of passport size photo thumbprint on the

document (Section 32A). Therefore mutating name in the register is

only proof of ownership of property and is silent on the status of

Citizenship of person to whom property is transferred.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
25/33

49. Banking regulations under the RBI are silent on bank

accounts or documents as proof of Citizenship. For Prevention of

Money Laundering, proof of identity and address is required from

persons opening bank accounts. However, Citizenship is not a

criterion for having a bank account in India.

50. The appellant could not adduce any additional evidence

to establish her claim to Indian Citizenship arising from these

documents. Voter ID cards are not incontrovertible evidence of Indian

Citizenship- presumption attached to the issuance of the voter ID card

may be challenged by a complaint that states material facts under

Section 136 of the Panchayat Act. The Supreme Court in Hari

Shankar Jain v. Sonia Gandhi, (2001) 8 SCC 233, held that even a

certificate of registration under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act

may be challenged in an election petition under Section 82(1) (a) of

the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

51. Hence Issue No. (iii) cannot be answered in favour of

the appellant.

52. We now deal with Issues No. (v).

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON STATELESSNESS

53. The material facts here are that the appellant, of her

admission, was born and raised in Nepal before her marriage to an

Indian citizen in 2003.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
26/33

54. However, the appellant has placed on the record that she

surrendered her Nepali Citizenship No.97962476 on February

242016, which was accepted by the Administrative Officer of Sarlahi

District of Nepal. The failure of the appellant to meet the

requirements for Indian Citizenship by registration, coupled with her

surrender of Nepali citizenship, leaves her citizenship status in limbo.

55. There is no doubt that matters of nationality, migration,

and immigration are a nation state’s sovereign prerogative. In Indian

law, this prerogative is vested in the Government of India under the

Citizenship Act, 1955, which flows directly from Article 11 and Entry

17 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. However,

the development of international relations and international law over

the past few decades has placed certain consideration on the state’s

prerogative in regulating nationality. Article 51(c) of the Constitution

mandates the State to foster respect for international law and treaty

obligations in the dealings of organized people with one another.

56. The UNHRC 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of

Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of

Statelessness are presently the leading multilateral treaties about the

prevention and reduction of statelessness. Both conventions simply

confirmed the prevailing international law custom of a state's duty to

prevent and reduce statelessness. While India is not a signatory to

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
27/33

either Statelessness Convention, this duty to prevent statelessness has

been consolidated in several other international legal instruments that

India is a party to. This includes Article 15 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights ('UDHR'); Article 24 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('ICCPR');

Article 9 of the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination Against Women ('CEDAW'); Article 5 of the

International Convention of Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination (‘ICERD’); Article 7 of the Convention on the Rights

of the Child (‘CRC’), and the Convention on the Nationality of

Married Women. It may be helpful to reproduce some of these

provisions here.

57. Article 15 of the UDHR states:

“(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality
nor denied the right to change his nationality.”

58. Article 5 of the ICERD is as follows:

“In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down
in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to
prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its
forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without
distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to
equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the
following rights:
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
28/33

(a) The right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all
other organs administering justice;

(c) Political rights, in particular the right to participate in

elections-to vote and to stand for election-on the basis of
universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the
Government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at
any level and to have equal access to public service;

(d) Other civil rights, in particular:

(i) The right to freedom of movement and residence within

the border of the State;

(ii) The right to leave any country, including one's own,

and to return to one's country;

(iii) The right to nationality;

(iv) The right to marriage and choice of spouse; …”

59. Article 9 of the CEDAW is as follows:

“1. States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men
to acquire, change or retain their nationality. They shall
ensure in particular that neither marriage to an alien nor
change of nationality by the husband during marriage shall
automatically change the nationality of the wife, render her
stateless or force upon her the nationality of the husband.

2. States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men

with respect to the nationality of their children.”

60. It is important to note that India has not made any

reservations against any of these listed articles.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
29/33

61. Additionally, Article 15(2) of the UDHR prohibits

arbitrary deprivation of nationality. This is an important protection in

situations where the denial of nationality leads to statelessness. India

played an active role in the introduction of this right into the draft

Article 15during the UDHR drafting sessions. Ms. Hansa Mehta, the

Indian representative at the UDHR drafting sessions, called the right

against arbitrary deprivation of nationality as ‘the fundamental right’.

62. India and Nepal have a history of bilateral engagement.

Article7 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the

Government of India and the Government of Nepal, 1950, promises

the grant of privileges relating to movement, residence, ownership of

property, trade and commerce etc. between the two countries on a

reciprocal basis.

63. Rule 4(1)(g) of the Passport (Entry Into India) Rules,

1950 exempts Nepalese and Bhutanese from carrying a valid passport

when entering India from land or air from the Nepalese or Bhutanese

frontier.

64. Nepalese citizenship law is primarily enshrined in two

instruments.

(i) The Constitution of Nepal

(ii) The Nepal Citizenship Act 2063 (2006)

65. A few salient points emerge from the provisions

mentioned above: the movement of Nepali citizens from across the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
30/33

land border to India is free and does not require documentation or a

passport, unlike other nationalities who are bound by the provisions

of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920. Nepalese Citizenship is

terminated upon the voluntary acquisition of Citizenship of another

country, including India. To re-acquire Nepalese Citizenship, the

former citizen of Nepal must return to reside in Nepal and submit a

notification to the concerned authority for reinstation of Citizenship.

66. There can be little doubt that the petitioner failed to

register herself as a citizen under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act.

Her voter ID cannot function as proof of Citizenship, since the status

of Indian Citizenship precedes the enrolment onto the electoral roll. It

must be emphasized that the conferral of Indian Citizenship is the

prerogative of the Central Government. Whether the petitioner

intentionally misrepresented facts in her Form-6 application for her

voter ID, or whether it was a bona fide mistake as she presumed the

electoral roll process was sufficient as registration for Indian

Citizenship, is a question we will not delve into.

67. However, we cannot ignore the question of the

petitioner's current legal status. She relinquished her Nepalese

Citizenship in 2016. She does not seem to possess any other

nationality. She owns assets, immovable property here. She has

continuously resided in India since her marriage and has two

Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
31/33

children, both resident in India, from the wedlock. These facts

together, perhaps, do demonstrate her intention to make India her

permanent home/domicile. There is an additional bureaucratic hurdle

in registering herself under the Citizenship Act – the documents to be

attached for an application under Section 5, per Form III under Rule

5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Rules, 2009, include a copy of valid

Foreign Passport and a copy of the valid Residential permit. To re-

obtain her Nepalese Citizenship, she will have to return to "reside" in

Nepal before applying for Citizenship, away from her immediate

family in India.

68. Yet, at the same time, this Court is not permitted to

direct the Central Government to grant the petitioner Indian

citizenship. This would impinge upon the Executive's functions.

However, in light of the peculiar situation of the petitioner; her

ordinary residence and family life in India; and India's international

law obligations to prevent statelessness, we direct that upon receipt of

the petitioner’s application, if so filed, the appropriate authority may

consider her application expeditiously, keeping in mind the

complications that have emerged in her legal status as enumerated

above.

69. We thus answer the issues as under: -

Issue No.(i)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
32/33

70. Given the law laid down by this Court in Rajani

Kumari (supra), the State Election Commission was empowered to

set aside the petitioner’s election on the specified ground under

Section 136(1) of the Panchayat Act of her not being an Indian

citizen.

Issue Nos.(ii) & (iv)

71. Given the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as

discussed supra and more specifically in State Trading Corporation

of India Ltd (supra), mere relinquishment of Citizenship of Nepal

does not confer upon her any right of Indian Citizenship, which right

flows only from and under Part-II of the Constitution of India and

the Citizenship Act.

Issue No. (iii)

72. Given the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Sarbananda Sonowal (supra); Rupjan Begum (supra);

Bhanwaroo Khan (supra); and State of U.P. v. Rehmatullah

(supra), and the other judicial pronouncements discussed, mere

possession of a Pan Card; a Voter ID Card; or an Aadhar Card

cannot be said to be proof of Indian Citizenship.

ADDITIONAL DIRECTION/ Issue No.(v)

 Patna High Court L.P.A No.139 of 2020 dt.12-10-2020
33/33

73. Petitioner/appellant's application under the Citizenship

Act, as and when filed, shall be processed and disposed of

expeditiously per law.

74. For all the reasons mentioned above, we do not find

any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment dated January

21, 2020, passed in CWJC No.19109 of 2019 titled as Kiran Gupta

Versus the State Election Commission & Ors. However, we dispose

of the present appeal with the observations mentioned above.

75. No order as to costs.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

S. Kumar, J. I agree.

(S. Kumar, J)

sujit/-

AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 19.02.2020
Uploading Date 12.10.2020
Transmission Date