1961 JTR(SC) 154
1961 AIR(SC) 1526 ; 1961 AllLJ 715 ; 1962 1 AndhWR(SC) 73 ; 1961 CrLJ 703 ; 1962 1 MLJ 73 ; 1962 MLJ(Cri) 84 ; 1961 2 SCA 639 ; 1962 SCD 93 ; 1962 1 SCJ 119 ; 1962 1 SCR 744 ; 1961 KLT(Online)(SC) 1296 ; 1961 KLT(Online) 1296 ; 1961 KHC 728
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4th April, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
The Union of India, and others, Appellants
Versus
Ghaus Mohammad, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, Mr. B. Sen, Sr. Advocate (Mr. T. M. Sen, Advocate, with them), for Appellants; M/s. H. L. Anand and Janardan Sharma, Advocates, for Respondents.
Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner lies upon that person. Disputed questions of fact regarding nationality are not suitable for Article 226 proceedings and should be decided through a civil suit.
Act
Referred
:CITIZENSHIP ACT: S.9
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.226
FOREIGNERS ACT: S.3(2)(c), S.8, S.9
(A) Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 9 - Onus of proof - When a question arises whether any person is or is not a foreigner, the onus of providing that such person is not a foreigner shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, lie upon such person. (Para 6)
(B) Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 8 - Scope - Provisions empowering the Government to decide the nationality of a person apply only when the person is already recognized as a foreigner and the question is which foreign country they belong to; it does not apply when the central question is whether the person is a foreigner or a citizen of the country. (Para 5)
(C) Citizenship Act, 1955 - Section 9 - Provisions dealing with the termination of citizenship of a citizen do not apply to cases where the primary dispute is whether the person is a foreigner or a citizen. (Para 3)
(D) Constitution of India - Article 226 - A proceeding under Article 226 is not appropriate for deciding disputed questions of fact that require a detailed examination of evidence, such as the nationality of a person; such questions are best decided by a civil suit. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
An order was passed directing a person to leave the country on the grounds of being a foreigner. The person challenged the order via a writ petition. The lower court quashed the order, holding that there was no prima facie material to establish the person's status as a foreigner and erroneously placing the burden of proof on the government.
Findings of Court:
The lower court misdirected itself by overlooking the statutory provision that places the burden of proof on the individual to show they are not a foreigner. Furthermore, the determination of nationality is a factual dispute unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the burden of proving non-foreigner status lies with the government or the individual, and whether a writ petition is the appropriate remedy for determining nationality based on disputed facts.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the legal burden to prove that a person is not a foreigner rests solely on that person. Since the status of the individual is a question of fact requiring evidence, it cannot be decided in a writ proceeding and should be adjudicated in a civil suit.
Result: Order and judgment of the High Court set aside.
(B) Foreigners Act, 1946 - Section 8 - Scope - Provisions empowering the Government to decide the nationality of a person apply only when the person is already recognized as a foreigner and the question is which foreign country they belong to; it does not apply when the central question is whether the person is a foreigner or a citizen of the country. (Para 5)
(C) Citizenship Act, 1955 - Section 9 - Provisions dealing with the termination of citizenship of a citizen do not apply to cases where the primary dispute is whether the person is a foreigner or a citizen. (Para 3)
(D) Constitution of India - Article 226 - A proceeding under Article 226 is not appropriate for deciding disputed questions of fact that require a detailed examination of evidence, such as the nationality of a person; such questions are best decided by a civil suit. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
An order was passed directing a person to leave the country on the grounds of being a foreigner. The person challenged the order via a writ petition. The lower court quashed the order, holding that there was no prima facie material to establish the person's status as a foreigner and erroneously placing the burden of proof on the government.
Findings of Court:
The lower court misdirected itself by overlooking the statutory provision that places the burden of proof on the individual to show they are not a foreigner. Furthermore, the determination of nationality is a factual dispute unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the burden of proving non-foreigner status lies with the government or the individual, and whether a writ petition is the appropriate remedy for determining nationality based on disputed facts.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the legal burden to prove that a person is not a foreigner rests solely on that person. Since the status of the individual is a question of fact requiring evidence, it cannot be decided in a writ proceeding and should be adjudicated in a civil suit.
Result: Order and judgment of the High Court set aside.
B.SEN, H.L.Anand, JANARDAN SHARMA, M.C.SETALVAD, T.M.SEN
Judgment
SARKAR, J. : This is an appeal by the Union of India from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab allowing the respondent s application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ quashing an order made against him on January 29, 1958, under S. 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. That order was made by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi and was in these terms:
"The Chief Commissioner of Delhi is pleased to direct that Mr. Ghaus Mohd........a Pakistan national shall not remain in India after the expiry of three days from the date on which this notice is served on him......."
The order was served on the respondent on February 3, 1958. The respondent did not comply with that order but instead moved the High Court on February 6, 1958, for a writ to quash it.
2. The High Court observed that "There must be prima facie material on the basis of which the authority can proceed to pass an order under S. 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act,1946. No doubt if there exists such a material and then the order is made which is on the face of it a valid order, then this Court cannot go into the question whether or not a particular person is a foreigner or, in other words, not a citizen of this country because according to S. 9 of the CITIZENSHIP ACT , 1955, this question is to be decided by a prescribed authority and under the Citizenship Rules, 1956, that authority is the Central Government." The High Court then examined the materials before it and held, "in the present case there was no material at all on the basis of which the proper authority could proceed to issue an order under S. 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946." In this view of the matter the High Court quashed the order.
3. It was contended on behalf of the Union of India that S. 9 of the CITIZENSHIP ACT , 1955, had no application to this case. We think that this contention is correct. That section deals with the termination of citizenship of a citizen of India in certain circumstances. It is not the Union s case nor that of the respondent that the latter s citizenship came to an end for any of the reasons mentioned in that section. The reference to that section by the High Court for the decision of the case, was therefore not apposite. That section had no application to the facts of the case.
4. Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, defines a "foreigner" as "a person who is not a citizen of India". Sub-section (1) of S. 3 of that Act gives power to the Central Government by order to provide for the presence or continued presence of foreigners in India. Sub-section (2) of S. 3 gives express power to the Government to pass orders directing that a foreigner shall not remain in India. It was under this provision that the order asking the respondent to leave India was made.
5. There is no dispute that if the respondent was a foreigner, then the order cannot be challenged. The question is whether the respondent was a foreigner. Section 8(1) of the Foreigners Act to which we were referred, deals with the case of a foreigner who is recognised as its national by more than one foreign country or when it is uncertain what his nationality is. In such a case this section gives certain power to the Government to decide the nationality of the foreigner. Sub-section (2) of this section provides that a decision as to nationality given under sub-sec. (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. We entirely agree with the contention of the Union that this section has no application to this case for that section does not apply when the question is whether a person is a foreigner or an Indian citizen, which is the question before us, and not what the nationality of a person who is not an Indian citizen, is.
6. Section 9 of this Act is the one that is relevant. That section so far as is material is in these terms:
Section 9 . "if in any case not falling under S. 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner....the onus of providing that such person is not a foreigner....shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), lie upon such person."
It is quite clear that this section applies to the present case and the onus of showing that he is not a foreigner was upon the respondent. The High Court entirely overlooked the provisions of this section and misdirected itself as to the question that arose for decision. It does not seem to have realised that the burden of proving that he was not a foreigner, was on the respondent and appears to have placed that burden on the Union. This was a wholly wrong approach to the question.
7. The question whether the respondent is a foreigner is a question of fact on which there is a great deal of dispute which would require a detailed examination of evidence. A proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution would not be appropriate for a decision of the question. In our view this question is best decided by a suit and to this course neither party seems to have any serious objection. As we propose to leave the respondent free to file such a suit if he is so advised, we have not dealt with the evidence on the record on the question of the respondent s nationality so as not to prejudice any proceeding that may be brought in the future.
8. We think, for the reasons earlier mentioned, that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and must be set aside and we order accordingly. On behalf of the Union of India the learned Attorney-General has stated that the union will not take immediate steps to enforce the order of January 29, 1958, for the deportation of the respondent so that in the meantime the respondent may if he so chooses, file a suit or take any other proceeding that he thinks fit for the decision of the question as to whether he is a foreigner.
9. In the result the only order that we make is that the order and the judgment of the High Court are set aside.
Order set aside.
For Citation : AIR 1961 SC 1526
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.