JURISDICTION:

1. The Constitution of India, under Article 136, has vested the Supreme
Court of India, with power to grant special leave, to appeal against any
judgment or order or decree in any matter or cause, passed or made by
any Court/tribunal in the territory of India. It is to be used in case any
substantial constitutional question of law is involved, or gross injustice
has been done.
2. Article 136 of the Constitution reads as under:
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court
may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or
matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment,
determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or
tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.
3. The present appeal arises from an order passed by the Learned Civil
Court, dismissing the Appellant’s suit against the Respondent assailing
the Respondent’s order dismissing the Appellant’s representation under
Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955
4. The Appellant hence states that this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try
and entertain the present S.L.P
 Arguments Advanced

THE APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY SUBMITS AS UNDER:

1. The Appellant was born on 1st May 1934 at Hapur, Meerut where he
domiciled for about 15 years. The Appellant shifted to Delhi in the year
1949, where he continued to live with his sister till March 1950.
2. 1950 was a year, remembered as one of the darkest moments of India’s
history. The Appellant states that due the communal riots that ensued in
the March of 1950, fearing for their lives, his sister’s family fled for
Pakistan, and they took the Appellant with them, who at that time was a
minor. The Appellant’s family, however, continued to reside at Hapur,
Meerut.
3. As soon as the riots subsided, the Appellant started taking necessary steps
to return to his Motherland. However, the Appellant states that he was not
given the requisite permits to leave for India. The Appellant submits that
he exhausted every possible legal way of returning to India, but he was
always directed that he could not do so unless he applies for a Pakistani
passport.
4. Under these circumstances, the Appellant states that he had no other
choice, but to apply for Pakistani passport and thereafter, Indian visa. The
Appellant most respectfully submits that he himself is stating the fact of
him having a Pakistani passport on record, which he understands is
potentially fatal to his case, as the reasons of him having a Pakistani
passport are very crucial as they, at least prima facie, depict the lack of
intention of surrendering Indian citizenship. The Appellant did so as there
was left with no other option and had to obtain the passport under the
threat of never being able to return to his country.
5. The Appellant applied for and obtained the Indian Visa. The Appellant
then went on to visit his family at Meerut. The Applicant, after reuniting
with his lost family, wished to take steps to reaffirm his Indian
Citizenship, which he was entitled to on the virtue of being born in India
and remaining domicile thereof for a major chunk of his life. The
Appellant also consulted a Lawyer who advised him to file for a hearing
with the Central Government. He also consulted a passport agent to
obtain the Indian Passport.
6. However, before he could do so, the period of his Visa expired, and the
Respondent took steps to deport him to Pakistan, being a Pakistani
passport holder. However, the Appellant preferred to make a
 representation under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act 1. In the sadi
representation, the Appellant inter alia prayed for an opportunity to be
heard. The Appellant also laid down the facts averred hereinabove. The
Appellant filed the said representation on the contention of being an
Indian Citizen and was ready to supplement this claim to satisfy the
provisions under Section 9(2) in the hearing.
7. The Appellant had, in the representation, prayed that he be allowed to
make his case before the Respondent, which he is not only entitled to by
Section 9(2), but also the Principles of Natural Justice. However, this
representation was rejected by the Respondents without giving any
opportunity to the Appellant to make his case.
8. The Appellant states that at the time the Appellant went to Pakistan, he
was a minor. It cannot be said that the Appellant voluntarily migrated, or
even migrated for that matter.
9. The Appellant states that Section 9 does not apply to him, as he wishes to
draw emphases to the word ‘voluntarily’, which is used throughout in the
section. The Appellant states that he never acquired the Pakistani passport
voluntarily but was forced to do so to return to his country. The
Appellant, at the stake of repetition, reiterates that he did not acquire the
said passport voluntarily, and is in the position to produce evidence to the
same. However, the Appellant was not allowed to do so.
10.The Appellant states that the act of the Respondent of arbitrarily rejecting
the Appellant’s representation without giving him an opportunity of being
heard is one that is contrary to the principles of Natural Justice, and
hence, the Appellant submits that the order rejecting his application is bad
in law and ought to be overturned.

1
9. Termination of citizenship.—
(1) Any citizen of India who by naturalisation, registration otherwise voluntarily acquires, or has at
any time between the 26th January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act, voluntarily acquired the
citizenship of another country shall, upon such acquisition or, as the case may be, such
commencement, cease to be a citizen of India: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to
a citizen of India who, during any war in which India may be engaged, voluntarily acquires, the
citizenship of another country, until the Central Government otherwise directs.
(2) If any question arises as to whether, when or how any 1[citizen of India] has acquired the
citizenship of another country, it shall be determined by such authority, in such manner, and having
regard to such rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf.
 11.The Appellant submits that he claims Citizenship under Article 52 of the
Constitution of India. The Appellant further submits that Article 9 3 would
not apply to the Appellant as he has merely acquired the Pakistani
Passport, and not it’s citizenship; which too was not done voluntarily.
12. It is the Appellant’s submission that Section 18(1) 4 of the Citizenship Act
authorises the Respondent the make rules for setting up an authority to
determine any question that arises under Section 9(2). The Respondents,
under Rule 30(2) of the Citizenship Rules, 1956 bound the Respondents
to have due regard to rules of evidence specified in Schedule III. Clause 1
of the said Schedule III sets out as under:
1. Where it appears to the Central Government that a citizen of
India has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any other country,
it may require him to prove within such period as may be fixed by it
in this behalf, that he has not voluntarily acquired the citizenship
of that country, and the burden of proving that he has not so
acquired such citizenship shall be on him.
13. The Appellant submits that the rule reproduced above binds the
Respondent to provide reasonable opportunity to prove that he has not
acquired such a citizenship within such period as may be decided. The
Appellant submits that this rule was not considered when the
Respondents arbitrarily dismissed the Appellant’s representation.
14.The Appellant states that this Hon;ble court has, in the case of Syed
Khwaja Moinuddin v Government of India5 held that when a plea is raised
that a citizen has not voluntarily obtained the passport, he should be
afforded an opportunity to prove that fact.
15. Being aggrieved by this arbitrary rejection of the Appellant’s
representation, the Appellants had filed a suit against the Respondent
which was dismissed. The Appellant, after exhausting the option of first
2
Article 5: 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

3
Article 9: No person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of article 5, or be deemed to be a citizen of
India by virtue of article 6 or article 8, if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign
State

4
Power to make rules:
(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette make rules to carry out the
purposes of this Act.

5
(1967) 2 SCR 401
 and second appeal from the impugned order of the Trial court, is filing the
present appeal under Art. __ of the Constitution of India.
16.The Appellant states that the learned trial court placed emphases only on
Clause 3 of the Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, however, the
learned Trial Court, in humble submission of the Appellant, erred in not
dealing with Clause 1 thereof. The Appellant states that a statute is to be
read as a whole, and not to the exclusion of any part thereof.
17.The Appellant hence preferred to file the present Special Leave Petition
on the grounds that the Respondent failed to conform to the Principles of
natural justice while disposing of the representation of the Appellant
made under section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 read with Rule 30
and Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956.

PRAYERS:
A. That the impugned order passed by the Trial Court be set aside.
B. That the Respondents be directed to reconsider the Appellant’s claim
under Section 9(2) by giving him an opportunity to make his case.
C. Costs be provided for.

ISSUES:
A. Whether the Respondents act of dismissing the Appellant’s representation
without giving due opportunity to be heard is contrary to the principles of
natural justice?
B. Whether the learned trial court ought to have had regard to Clause 1 of
the 3rd Schedule to the Citizenship Rules, 1956?
C. Whether the Appellant voluntarily and willingly obtained a Pakistani
Passport, and thereby surrendered Indian citizenship?
D. What orders?