Court : Delhi
Reported in : 120(2005)DLT274; 2005(82)DRJ50
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2920; JT2005(6)SC79; (2005)5SCC665
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by way of public interest litigation for declaring certain provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, (Act No. 39 of 1983) 1983 as ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void and consequent declaration that the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Rules made thereunder shall apply to the State of Assam. The second prayer made is to declare the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 as ultra vires the Constitution of India and also under Section 28 of the aforesaid Act and, therefore, null and void. Some more reliefs have been claimed which will be referred to at the appropriate stage. The respondents to the writ petition are the Union of India and the State of Assam. 2. The case set up in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is ordinarily resident in the State of Assam. He is a former President of the All Assam Stu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 137(2007)DLT195
Vijender Jain, Acting C.J.1. This writ petition was filed in the year 1999 with the following prayers:(i) the President had no discretion in the matter and he should have invited the acknowledged leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha during the process of consultation and not a person who was not the elected member of the House;(ii) the disregard to the well established Constitutional Convention has hurt the basic structure of the Constitution;(iii) no person who is not a citizen within meaning of Article 5 of the Constitution has the right to be elected or appointed to any public office under the Constitution;(iv) the recognition granted by the Election Commission under Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is limited by the Constitution to only to such political party/parties which has/have as its/their office bearers citizens who come within meaning of Article 5 of the Constitution;(v) no person who does not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 can be appointed in the U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2007Mad187; (2007)2MLJ831
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The appellant, Nalini and her husband, Srikaran alias Murugan were arrested in connection with the murder of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. While in prison, the appellant gave birth to a female child, Megara on 21.1.1992 in Chengalpattu Medical College Hospital at Chengalpattu. Her birth was also registered in Chengalpattu Municipality on 24.1.1992 under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. She lived with her mother in the prison. Then in 1998, the Special Court awarded death penalty to all 26 accused, including the appellant and her husband. In view of this precarious situation, the appellant's mother-in-law, a Sri Lanka citizen took minor Megara to Sri Lanka with her. Megara was given an emergency passport by the Sri Lanka Government to travel to Sri Lanka and she continues to stay in Sri Lanka since 1998. In appeal, the appellant's death penalty was converted into life imprisonment and she has been kept in Special Prison for Women at Vellore. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
This petition is filed to dismiss the Election Petition No.4 of 2009 as infructuous. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the election petition. The 1st respondent stated that on his resignation as M.L.A. (Member of Legislative Assembly) of 28-Vemulawada Assembly Constituency, a notification to that effect was issued by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature Secretariat to give effect to the resignation from 14-02-2010. A vacancy had arisen for 28- Vemulawada Assembly Constituency, which was not notified for the conduct of by- elections by the Election Commission of India in their Press Note, dated 21-06-2010, while signifying their decision to hold by-elections to fill up ten other prior vacancies. The non-inclusion of Vemulawada Constituency and another Constituency was challenged in W.P. No.14443 of 2010 and the High Court ordered on 30-06-2010 to hold by-elections for 28-Vemulawada Constituency and another Constituency also along with the other ten Constituencies. The electi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE28H DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.14333 OF2022(GM - RES) BETWEEN:1. . AISHA MALIK D/O. AMEENA RAHIL, AGED ABOUT17YEARS. 2 . AHMED MALIK S/O. AMEENA RAHIL, AGED ABOUT14YEARS. BOTH RESIDING AT NO.34, SRI RAMA MANDIRA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMT. AMEENA RAHIL, RESIDING AT NO.34, SRI RAMA MANDIRA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU 560 004. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.SUDHARSAN, A/W SRI ANIRUDH A.K., ADVOCATES) 2 AND:1. . UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, DELHI - 110 001. 2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, DC OFFICE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560 009. 3 . MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS UNION OF INDIA SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI - 110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ADITYA SINGH, CGC FOR R1 AND R3; SRI B.V.KRISHNA, AGA F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1977Bom274; (1977)79BOMLR105
Desai, J.1. In this Special Civil Application the petitioner has impugned the order dated 31st December 1970 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, determining the status of the petitioner under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. In order to appreciate the grounds of challenge a few facts may be stated:2. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 5th November 1966 threatening that he will be deported out of the territory of India. Thereupon he filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, being Suit No. 98 of 1967. seeking a declaration that he was a citizen of India; he also sought a permanent injunction against the State of Maharashtra and the Union of India restraining them from taking any action against him in the nature of deportation as threatened. In the said suit the following four issues were framed by the trial Court:'1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?2. Whether the plaintiff is a citizen o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1984Ker146
ORDERV. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.'Breathes there the man with soul so dead who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land !'--Sir Walter Seott.'Citizenship is man's basic right; for it is nothing less than the right to have rights. Remove this priceless possession and there remains a stateless person, disgraced and degraded in the eyes of his countrymen.'(Chief Justice Earl Warden in Perez v. Brownell).1. Here is a petitioner who craves for Indian citizenship and cries for the determination of his rights by the Central Government. The Government dealt him a hard blow on harsh technicality. And so, to the brief facts :2. When India became free, Mohammad Ahmed, the petitioner was an Indian citizen. He was born in 1938 in Kerala. He had thus his roots in India where his parents, brothers and sisters were also born. He married a woman also bora in India. He came from a poor family and he was illiterate, poverty preventing him from prosecuting his studies beyond the second stand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1988Cal259,92CWN539
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The two Judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, : [1975]1SCR127 , which has followed the earlier four Judges Bench decision in Sarbate T. B. v. Nemichand, 1966 MPLJ 26 (SC) and has held the contrary view in the three Judge Bench decision in Kamla Soni v. Rup Lal Mehra, 1970 RCJ 34 : (AIR 1969 NSC 186) not to be good law in view of Sarbate T. B. (supra) and even otherwise, has now been taken to have settled that the finding as to reasonable requirement of the suit-premises by the landlord in a suit for ejectment against the tenant is a finding of fact unassailable in second appeal unless it can be shown that there was an error of law in arriving at such a finding or that the finding was based on no evidence at all or was such as no reasonable person could arrive at it. A later three Judge Bench decision in Damadilal v. Parasram, : AIR1976SC2229 has only adverted to the earlier views without, however, expressing any opinion. It must, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1989MP254; 1989MPLJ121
Y.B. Suryavanshi, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from treating them as Foreign Nationals of Bangladesh/or their stay in India as unauthorised, and for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking them into custody for deporting them outside India. 2. (i) Many facts are undisputed. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are, respectively, the mother and younger brother of one Narayan Chandra Pal (for short, called Pal) who came to India in 1962 and had been residing at village Punji, Gram Panchayat Chopna, in District Betul. In December 1971, war broke out between India and Pakistan. East Bengal was then part of Pakistan. Lacs of Hindu refugees from East Bengal came to India. The war culminated in the creation of a new State, now known as 'Bangla Desh'. These two petitioners also came to India as 'refugees'. The Government of India on humanitarian considerati...
Tag this Judgment!