B.C. Patel, C.J.
1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to investigate and adjudicate in accordance with law, the wrongs committed by private respondents and has further prayed to appoint Special Commissioner to investigate the offences as indicated in the petition and to make a report to the Court. He has further prayed to initiate action against the respondent No. 5 under the provisions contained in the Citizenship Act, 1955.
2. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that within the meaning of Section 10 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, it is the duty of the Central Government to investigate the matter and it mandates the Home Ministry, to deprive the Indian citizenship, if a person is found guilty. For this purpose, the petitioner has alleged that there is a report from the KGB that respondent No.5 and family members received financial favors from the KGB through an Indian company controlled by respondent No.5. It is further alleged that the CBI was seized of this and other matters on the basis of material supplied by the petitioner. It is further averred in the petition that no proper inquiry is made though it was the duty of the investigating agency to inquire. The petitioner has further alleged that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have not taken the required steps to deprive respondent No.5 of her Indian citizenship.
3. When the petition was filed, according to the petitioner, respondent No.5 was the leader of the opposition and respondent no.5 had enormous influence, which according to the petitioner, was misused.
4. It is alleged in the petition that on 27.6.1992 a noted journalist, Ms. Yvegenia Albats of Moscow quoted from a report of the former KGB Chief, V. Chebrikov to the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) Central Committee. The petitioner has quoted a few lines translated from Russian and published in Ms. Albat's book 'The State Within the State: The KGB in Russia'. It is further averred in the petition that the relevant portion of the aforesaid book from English translated edition, published by Farrar, Strauss and Giiraux, New York is at Annexure C. The petitioner has stated that the Central Government should investigate in this behalf. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has written to the Home Minister on 26.5.2001, but inaction has been taken.
5. The petitioner has again relied on a book 'The State Within a State ' Russia and the Role of KGB' where references to the files etc are given.
6. Again the petitioner has relied on a news item dated 3.7.1992 published in 'The Hindu' dated 4.7.1992 under the caption 'KGB helped firm controlled by Rajiv's family' by Vlamidir Radyhuin. A copy of the news item is placed on record at page 6. Reading the same it appears that it is coming from Moscow. This piece of paper cannot be treated under any circumstances as having any evidentiary value so as to direct an agency to investigate the matter. It is also required to be noted that the operative portion of the news item reads as 'The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service admits the possibility that the KGB could have been involved in arranging profitable Soviet contracts for the company controlled by the Rajiv Gandhi family'. Thus it is very clear that the agency while expressing an opinion refers to the possibility only, and the words 'could have been involved' indicate that there is no positive or definite information. thereforee, such item cannot be looked into for any type of investigation to be ordered by the Court. If the material is corroborated by independent piece of evidence, the matter may be different.
7. So far as the book, on which reliance is placed, is concerned, relevant zerox pages are produced on record at pages 33 to 35. Again the author relies on a letter signed by Victor Chebrikov, who replaced Andropov as head of the KGB in 1982. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on some statement made in a letter which is alleged to have been signed by Victor Chebrikov and the book is translated in English. There is no positive evidence placed on record by the petitioner.
8. It is contended that respondent No.5 acquired citizenship on or about 30.4.1983 under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Citizenship Act, 1955 came to be enacted by Parliament to provide for the acquisition and determination of Indian Citizenship. The Constitution of India does not, however, make any provision with respect to acquisition of citizenship after its commencement or the termination of citizenship or other matters relating to citizenship. Under Art. 11, the Constitution expressly saves the power of Parliament to make a law to provide for such matters. The acquisition of citizenship, after the commencement of the Constitution, may be by birth, descent, registration, naturalization and incorporation of territory. It also provides for the termination and deprivation of citizenship under certain circumstances. Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act deals with citizenship by registration. The said section reads as under:-
5. Citizenship by registration. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the prescribed authority may, on application made in this behalf, register as a citizen of India any person who is not already such citizen by virtue of Constitution or by virtue of any of the other provisions of this Act and belongs to any of the following categories.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(c) persons who are or have been, married to citizens of India and are ordinarily resident in India and have been so resident for five years immediately before making an application for registration.
9. A person married to a citizen of India and is ordinarily resident in India and has been residing for five years immediately before making an application for registration can make an application for registering as a citizen of India. A person registered under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act shall be a citizen of India by registration as from the date on which he was registered. The application is to be made in the form prescribed under Rule 4 of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, which is required to be submitted to the Collector within whose jurisdiction the applicant is ordinarily residing.
10. If a person satisfies the requirement of Section 5 of the Act can be registered as a citizen of India. The procedure, as indicated in Part II of the Rules under the Citizenship Act known as Citizenship Rules is to be followed. The authority constituted under Rule 8 is empowered to register a person as a citizen of India.
11. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 did not marry an Indian citizen and that did not reside in India for a period of five years prior to making an application for registration. The powers are conferred under the Statute to grant the citizenship and it is for the Government to exercise the powers under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act. When the Parliament, a Legislative Body, has prescribed conditions while conferring citizenship, it cannot be said that the citizenship ought not to have been conferred in absence of any material. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent no.5 had not qualified to be a citizen of India.
12. The petitioner's request to initiate action under Section 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is not required to be entertained by the Court. The Government is required to be satisfied about the conditions incorporated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 before depriving citizenship of any such citizen of India. Reading sub-section (3) of Section 10, it is very clear that the Central Government cannot deprive a person of citizenship under Section 10 unless it is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that person should continue to be a citizen of India.
13. It is also required to be referred at this stage Section 14, which reads as under:-
'Disposal of application under secs. 5 and 6 ' (1) The prescribed authority or the Central Government may, in its discretion, grant or refuse an application under Sec. 5 or Sec. 6 and shall not be required to assign any reasons for such grant or refusal (2) Subject to the provisions of Sec. 15, the decision of the prescribed authority or the Central Government on any such application as aforesaid shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court.'
14. From Annexure-L to the petition, which is dated May 18, 2001, addressed by the petitioner to the Minister of Home Affairs, it is very clear that the petitioner was aware that respondent No.5 got her citizenship of India on April 13/30, 1983. It was or the petitioner having acquired knowledge much earlier to approach the Competent Authority under the Act for exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Act.
15. It is required to be noted that when an order is made by a competent authority granting a certificate of citizenship under Section 5(1)(c), it is always open to challenge by preferring a revision petition under Section 15 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The said Section 15 reads as under:-
'15. Revision (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under this Act by the prescribed authority or any officer or other authority (other than the Central Government) may, within a period of thirty days from the date of the order make an application to the Central Government for a revision of that order;
Provided that the Central Government may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.(2) On receipt of any such application under sub-section (1), the Central Government shall, after considering the application of the aggrieved person and any report thereon which the officer or authority making the order may submit, make such order in relation to the application as it deems fit, and the decision of the Central Government shall be final.'
16. Thus, if any person is of the opinion that an order contrary to law has been made, the appropriate forum is provided to challenge the same. The petitioner has stated in the aforesaid letter that 'she moreover was required to formally notify the authorities of the Central Government of the said renunciation of Italian citizenship which she had failed to do or falsely claimed renunciation on the mere surrender of her Italian passport which would be fraud in the eyes of law'. If an application is made under the Act, as contemplated, then the application is required to be made as contemplated in the Citizenship Rules, 1956. Rule 4 which is in part II of the aforesaid Rules refers to an application for registration or form of application for registration under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act. An undertaking in writing is required to be given that the applicant will renounce the citizenship of country of origin in the event of application being sanctioned. The Rule and Form take care of the provisions contained in the Act. The person is required to give various details including an undertaking of renunciation of the citizenship of the country of origin in the event of application is sanctioned. The person making an application has to take an oath of allegiance by affirming or swearing to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and the applicant will faithfully observe the laws of India and fulfill duties as the citizen of India. Even according to the petitioner it is clear that the passport issued by Govt. of Italy has been surrendered. In view of the provision once certificate granting citizenship is issued, for all the purposes, citizenship of other country is deemed to have been renunciated. The petitioner has stated that his enquiries revealed that citizenship of other country is intact and respondent no.5 is recorded as the citizen by Italy. This statement is made without disclosing any evidence or source of information. Statement made in the application for citizenship is required to be made on oath and the person is required to act according to the oath taken. It may be noted that bare statement in a letter is made without anything more. On such vague averment, it would not be proper for the Court to issue any direction.
17. The Apex Court in Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi : AIR2001SC3689 in para 29 pointed out as under:-
'It must be held that respondent by virtue of the certificate granted to her under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, which certificate has not been cancelled, withdrawn or annulled till date, is 'a citizen of India'. The petitions are filed nearly two decades after the grant of citizenship to the respondent.'
18. The petitioner has placed no evidence acceptable to the Court in this regard and the averments made in the petition are vague. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum. It is required to be noted that, even according to the petitioner, citizenship was granted to respondent No.5 in the year 1983. Now after two decades it is too late in time to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was for the petitioner to challenge the order made by the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955. In view of inordinate delay in approaching court without availing the remedy provided under the Statute, it would not be proper for this court to entertain a petition.
19.The petitioner has no personal knowledge about the contents i.e extracts of books/news items. On the views expressed by an author in an article or in a book, the court cannot be called upon to exercise writ jurisdiction to direct the authority to investigate.
20. In view of what is stated above, we find no merit and the petition is dismissed.