S. 9]
CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955
5
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 person 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.
Comments
Scope. In terms of the determinations in the cases of Forbes v. Forbes1 and Udny v. Udny, a child acquires at birth a domicile of origin by opera- tion of law, namely, if legitimate and born in his father's lifetime, the domicile of his father, and if illegitimate or born after his father's death in terms of the determinations in the cases of Udny v. Udny,3 Re Wrights Trust* and Urquhart v. Butterfield, the domicile of his mother. Since it appears from the facts disclosed in the instant case that the birth of the petitioner took place during the lifetime of his father and he was legitimate, he has acquired on his birth the domi cile of the father by operation of law."
Declaration of citizenship.-In view of the interpretation of Sec. 9 (2) of the Act, suits like these declarations of citizenship can be finally disposed of by restraining the State from deporting the plaintiff till the decision under Sec. 9 (2) of the Act. In this way public money and the time can better be saved, if the State administration itself moves the Central Government for decision whenever any citizen is found to have acquired the nationality of any foreign country.7
Opportunity of being heard.—It is well settled that it is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to what the principles of natural justice are or when they are to be applied and in what manner. This scope, extent and applica- tion will vary from case to case and it much depends upon the type of representation made by the aggrieved party. The moment such representa- tion is made, the determining authority will have to apply its mind to the nature of the pleas contained in that representation and decide whether the pleas afford any sort of defence or justification and what is the nature of the evidence indicated in those pleas. It will have to consider whether the party has had the opportunity of bringing such evidence and all other material to substantiate the pleas before the determining authority. If the party has received that opportunity and has availed itself of it or wilfully chosen not to avail of such opportunity, then the determining authority may go ahead and decided on whatever material has been placed between it. If that decision is honestly arrived at, then the procedure adopted cannot be faulted merely on the ground that no personal hearing was afforded to the party or the opportunity to lead oral evidence was denied to that party. The question whether the party has had a proper opportunity or has been
1. (1854) Kav 341.
2. (1869) L.R. 1S C. and Div. 441 (H.L). 3. Ibid.
4. (1856) 2 K. & J. 595.
5. (1887) 37 Ch. D. 357.
of
6 Sham Roj v. Additional Superintendent e Police. A I. R. 1978 Cal. 252 at p. 258.
7. Sayed Ahmed Kabuli v. State of Maha- rashtra, A. I. R. 1975 Bom. 176 at p.
182.