Judgment :- 1. Alike, amidst the clash of arms, and in peaceful times, the Law and the Court shall talk in the same tone and tune. So said Lord Atkin, alone then, in Liversedge's case. That lone dissent had a glorious content. It only took some time, for Atkin's approach to have unquestioned approval of House of Lords. Such is an interesting facet of legal history. Atkin pleaded for personal liberty. Personal liberty should not be exposed to extra hazard even in trying times. That, however, does not mean that in difficult situations, administrators of ordinary affairs and of the courts of law, should not be particularly alive and active in relation to the defence of the realm, and protection of the Nation. A casualness in approach ill suits a civilized Government or a constitutional court. The task is difficult and delicate-of insulating the individual against unjustified incursion on his rights, and, simultaneously, of checkmating any possible infiltration into the watch and vigil of the frontiers of the country. And with what is virtually a sub-continent, the task is tiresome; yet it has to be done. Long coastlines on all sides but one, add to the dimension of the problem. On the north, the high and old Himalaya cannot be the only sentinel. These thoughts surge forward while dealing with the plea of the petitioners for release from the tension and suspense arising out of the threat of deportation, with an accusation against them of alien citizenship. 2. The category of case the High Court has given them the appellation "Citizenship Cases" is seen to be swelling, atleast in recent times. The scrutiny of the statistics can probably be restricted to the last one decade. The cases were indeed rare from 1975 to 1979, the number being 6,3, 1 and 3 respectively. Twenty one cases came to this Court in 1979. In the year 1986, as on 25-8-1986, 79 cases were instituted. In the existing situation, there is perhaps an added dimension to the problem, apart from a possible significance arising out of an extra-ordinary increase in the litigation. 3. Even a cursory analysis of the facts of the cases would indicate some striking features. Ahmed and Mohammed, Ali and Alavi, Khader and Abulkhader, Assanar and Yusuf all are in the queue. Almost half of them come from Cannanore District. 3. Even a cursory analysis of the facts of the cases would indicate some striking features. Ahmed and Mohammed, Ali and Alavi, Khader and Abulkhader, Assanar and Yusuf all are in the queue. Almost half of them come from Cannanore District. Malappuram claims about a third; and the rest is from Kozhikode. All of them hold Pakistan passports. They have landed in India between various dates of 1955 and 1980; and even as late as 29-6-1986. The annexure gives the time when the petitioners arrived in India on the last occasion and the date when they made an application to the Government of India for determination of their citizenship under S.9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 4. For reasons not easy to understand, the respondent primarily responsible for the defence of these cases- The Government of India- does not appear to have any serious thoughts on the problems posed in these writ petitions. Counter-affidavits have been filed only in a few of them. Though the gravity of the situation and the seriousness of the problems as felt by the Court had been indicated, substantial assistance was not forthcoming either on factual or on legal matters from those entrusted with the conduct of the cases, presumably out of the inadequate equipment as furnished by the official channels. The learned Advocate-General of the State, and the Director of Public Prosecutions, made their submissions in the matter. The Director of Public Prosecutions in particular, assisted the Court with the useful instruction he had in the light of the discussion with the State Police Officials, who had and perhaps the necessity of having intimate touch with such problem in the State. 5. The petitioners aver that they were born as Indian citizens; despite the possession of the Pakistani passport, they claim that they have not relinquished Indian citizenship. They assert that they have filed a petition under S.9(2); and affirm that those petitions still remain to be disposed of. In most of the cases, no demur is made by the Government of India to any of those assertions. Even in the other cases, the pendency of the petition under S.9(2) is admitted. 6. Some principles are well established. Our Constitution does not favour plural or dual citizenship. The Indian citizenship is lost if the person concerned acquires foreign citizenship either by naturalisation or by voluntary acquisition. Even in the other cases, the pendency of the petition under S.9(2) is admitted. 6. Some principles are well established. Our Constitution does not favour plural or dual citizenship. The Indian citizenship is lost if the person concerned acquires foreign citizenship either by naturalisation or by voluntary acquisition. The authority to determine the question about the acquisition of citizenship of another country is the Central Government. Schedule.3 contains rules of evidence which govern the determination of the question. Burden of proof in certain situations is cast upon the person seeking the determination. R.3 provides that the proof of the fact that a passport from a foreign country has been obtained conclusively determines that he had voluntarily acquired citizenship of that foreign country before the obtaining of the passport. The application of the rule may, in hypothetical cases, lead to hardship and injustice; that aspect does not affect its Constitutional validity. A passport obtained by the person is relevant in the adjudication of the citizenship. 7. The provisions pertaining to Pakistani Passports have been particularly discussed. In the context of the present cases where all the petitioners are Pakistan passport holders, the following resume of the provisions of the law in that country governing the issue of a passport as given by the Supreme Court is relevant: "according to the laws prevailing in Pakistan, a person is not entitled to apply for and obtain a passport unless he is a citizen of Pakistan under lis Citizenship Act. Besides, the prescribed form of the application requires that the applicant should make a declaration to the effect that he is a citizen of Pakistan and the said declaration has to be accepted by the Pakistan authorities before a passport is issued. In the course of the enquiry as to the citizenship of the applicant, declaration by officials of Pakistan about the truth of the statement of the applicant are also required to be filed." (Izhar Ahmad v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1052) When a passport is obtained in the manner indicated above, it would enable the Pakistan Government to claim the passport holder as its own citizen. The citizen would be estopped from claiming against the Pakistan Government that the statement made by him was untrue. 8. The citizen would be estopped from claiming against the Pakistan Government that the statement made by him was untrue. 8. The further observation of the Supreme Court in relation to R.3, which has relevance for cases of the type herein, and one en which counsel for the petitioners placed considerable reliance is. what is contained in Ayub Khan v. Commissioner of Police, Madras, 1965 (2) SCR 884. The observations read: "But obtaining of a passport of a foreign country cannot In all cases merely mean receiving the passport. If a plea is raised by the citizen that he had not voluntarily obtained the passport, the citizen must be afforded an opportunity to prove that fact. Cases may be visualised in which on account of force a person may be compelled or on account of fraud or misrepresentation he may be induced, without any intention of renunciation of his Indian citizenship, to obtain a passport from a foreign country. It would be difficult to say that such a passport is one which has been "obtained" within the meaning of Para.3 of Sch. Ill and that a conclusive presumption must arise that he has acquired voluntarily citizenship of that country." It is necessary to note that in the above case, the appellant-petitioner had not been given an opportunity to prove his plea that he had been compelled by the police to obtain a passport from the High Commissioner for Pakistan. It was in view of that circumstance that the orders of deportation, and the judgment of the High Court affirming the action, were upset by the Supreme Court. The further sentence therein, which is also significant, reads: "It will of course be open to the Central Government to determine whether the appellant has lost the citizenship of India by voluntarily acquiring the citizenship of Pakistan by obtaining a passport from the High Commissioner for Pakistan, or in any other manner. But the determination must be made In accordance with law." 9.The exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government to decide the citizenship in situations such as are indicated above, has been emphasised in the latest of the decision, in Bhagwati Prasad v. Rajeev Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1534. A decision has to be made by the Central Government; the decision can be made only by the Central Government. A decision has to be made by the Central Government; the decision can be made only by the Central Government. No authority, nor even Court, whatever be its hierarchy can go into the question and decide the issue. Not without reason. As Venkataramiah, J. pointed out, in Bhagwati Prasad's case (Supra): "the right of citizenship of the person who ii admittedly an Indian citizen should not be exposed to attack in all forums in the country, but should be decided by one authority in accordance with the prescribed rules and that every other Court or authority would have to act on the basis of the decision of the prescribed authority in that behalf and on no other basis." The High Court trying an election petition which that Court has otherwise exclusive jurisdiction to hear and dispose of cannot adjudicate the question of citizenship, even when the question is raised before it directly. Such is the special and peculiar position of law and the role of the Central Government. 10. The legal position impels the authorities to withhold deportation proceedings till the decision about citizenship is made by the Government of India. When the decision is yet to be taken, the deportation mechanism has necessarily to be disconnected from mobile operation. Precious little then remains to be done by the Court; except to reiterate the legal position and make consequential direction. The competing considerations come to fore in such a situation. It is neither just nor proper that the delay on the part of the statutory authority in rendering a decision should visit with a prejudice of an irretrievable character on the person who has set in motion an available legal provision. Uncertain is the destiny and destination of a deportee. No civilized institution can ordinarily expose a person to the deprivation of his life or the mutilation of his limb in such situations where a bonafide petition from a person who has a possible or plausible claim, remains to be adjudicated fairly and properly. That is one side of the picture; a fairly clear one. Presence of a spy adept in tactics of Kautilya, or versatile in the science of spying, cannot, at the same time, be ruled out. That is one side of the picture; a fairly clear one. Presence of a spy adept in tactics of Kautilya, or versatile in the science of spying, cannot, at the same time, be ruled out. There can even be cases where persons who have fanatic loyalty to an alien land, and possibly even association with unsafe (unsafe from the point of Indian Nation) elements, may sell for some shillings, the secrets of this country and undermine the progress and security of this Nation. The Director of Public Prosecution referred to many cases where such Pakistani passport holders are "out of view", 'OV as the expression is used in police parlance. Would a bonafide citizen of India be out of view for an inordinately long time after his landing on the Indian soil? Would be not be active and alive about the adjudication of his citizenship claim, at the earliest point of time, if there be any cloud on that claim? Would he necessarily wait till the police man knocks at his door with a document authorising the deportation? These are some relevant thoughts. At least occasionally, the presence of such persons has dangerous portents. 11. One would have thought that prescription of a time limit within which an application under S.9(2) is to be filed, would have served the purpose of expediting the presentation of such claims. Such previsions necessitating the filing of an application sufficiently early, exist elsewhere. For example, an application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant has such a limitation of time. The prescription of such time limit has been noted by the Supreme Court (State of Assam v. Deksha Prasad Deka and Ors. (1970) 2 SC WR 845.) 12. Alerting a person crossing over to the country with a foreign passport about the necessity for a time bound application in relation to the invocation under S.9(2) may also be useful. The intimation can be individual by a short slip of paper handed over to him at the point of entry, the costs therefor being defrayed by appropriate levy, if the public exchequer is not to be weakened by this extra concern for what is otherwise the individual's personal matter. It could even be attempted by a prominent display of notice in that behalf at the ports and passages of entry into the Indian Union. It could even be attempted by a prominent display of notice in that behalf at the ports and passages of entry into the Indian Union. It is not for the court to devise measures or to tender advice. The matter is certainly one where the Government of India would do well to bestow some serious and immediate thought upon. 13. Two matters particularly call for the attention of the authorities while dealing with the petitions under S.9(2). One is about the long pendency of such applications. A long pendency of the petition is prejudicial to the interests of the Nation. There may be cases where circumstances do warrant an instantaneous deportation of a person on the ground of his being an objectionable alien. Even then the legal process will have to be brought to a grinding halt, the moment that person claims that be was an Indian citizen earlier, and that despite his acquisition of an alien passport, he continues to be an Indian citizen; and asserts that he has filed an application for the determination of his citizenship. And if the decision in the S.9(2) petition proceeds with a leisurely pace, the individual can move along the country and mix with all and sundry, and even rummage and ransack, a sensitive establishment or equipment, if he is so motivated and so trained and shaped for such a task. 14. To those aliens attempting activities to subvert the safety of the State, the pendency is a veritable boon. It is necessary that this aspect is adverted to and avoided, soon. 15. Even in the case of a person who has a genuine claim, the tension suspense arising out of the pendency would be ordinarily insufferable. It is neither just nor fair that such group of honest petitioners are exposed to a gnawing experience all the while. Everyone of them could not have the spine and stamina of Warren Hastings who could face his harassing impeachment for nearly a decade; nor can all of them aspire a life span to 86 as Hastings did have. 16. The complaint about the unsatisfactory arrangement in relation to the disposal of the petitions appears to be fully justified. Everyone of them could not have the spine and stamina of Warren Hastings who could face his harassing impeachment for nearly a decade; nor can all of them aspire a life span to 86 as Hastings did have. 16. The complaint about the unsatisfactory arrangement in relation to the disposal of the petitions appears to be fully justified. The distance that separates Delhi and the place of ordinary residence of the persons concerned, can virtually deny them an effective opportunity of putting forward such of those indispensable items of evidence to establish their plea before the Government of India. The oppression of geography in relation to the agitation of a claim has been noted in specialised studies. In relation to the litigants in the Lakshadweep Island, Justice Bhagwati (as His Lordship then was) and Justice Krishna Iyer, had indicated this aspect in the report prepared by them and submitted to the Government of India. The considerations and factors referred to by them have full application in relation to persons like the petitioners, almost at the southernmost tip of the Indian Union. The cases which have come to the Court do indicate how quite often the petitioners had ultimately to get reconciled with the presentation of a some what more voluminous representation when a personal hearing as mandated by law was given to them. It is not as though this serious barrier in the effective dispensation of justice has not been brought to the notice of the Government of India earlier. Bhaskaran Nambiar J. in Mohammed Ahmed v. State of Kerala, 1983 KLT 1009, made a pointed reference to it. The learned judge observed: "Before leaving, I may also observe that the Central Government may consider the desirability and even the necessity of conducting the hearing of S.9(2) application in Kerala also considering the very large number of applications from Kerala and poor resources of the applicants to effectively represent their cause in far off Delhi. Let not distance and destitution defeat justice and deny citizenship in relevant situations." 17. No information was available from the Government of India as to whether any steps had been taken in pursuance of the suggestion and observation made by this Court. In that situation this Court had necessarily to issue suitable directions in the matter, as indicated below. Let not distance and destitution defeat justice and deny citizenship in relevant situations." 17. No information was available from the Government of India as to whether any steps had been taken in pursuance of the suggestion and observation made by this Court. In that situation this Court had necessarily to issue suitable directions in the matter, as indicated below. It is not difficult for a responsible functionary to have the camp sitting in the District Quarters concerned, so that the affected person could be personally present before such authorities and attempt to establish their claim whether ultimately upheld or not. When it is laid down that a special plea like force, fraud or misrepresentation requires convincing evidence to rebut the effect of the presumption arising out of R.3, it is only fair that the person concerned is given all reasonable facilities in that behalf. Even oral evidence could be attempted at. It is ordinarily inconceivable for an applicant, particularly when he comes from a poor background, to attempt adducing such evidence in a far off place like New Delhi. Assistance of counsel, well within the means of the applicant, would also be available, if the hearing takes in a place in the State. If in relation to matters like levy of tax or duty, an opportunity of that nature is ordinarily affordable nearer the place of the assessee, there could not be any good reason to deny such opportunity in an important and sensitive adjudication as the one involving the citizen status of an applicant. 18. In a sense, it will enable the Central Government to have a better arrangement in co-ordinating the materials which may be available as a result of enquiries made by the police-men in the field. Materials and information which could be collected even on discussion with the officers who have actually done the work, would be far more effective and useful than concise report wherein an abridged version of the findings of the man in action is crudely attempted. This again is a matter for a policy decision at the highest level. 19. It may be apposite in this connection to refer to yet another disturbing feature noticed in relation to the orders actually passed by the Government of India. This again is a matter for a policy decision at the highest level. 19. It may be apposite in this connection to refer to yet another disturbing feature noticed in relation to the orders actually passed by the Government of India. Many cases disposed of by this Court, contain references to anterior unsatisfactory orders, the agitation against the same before this Court, and the quashing of such orders with direction for fresh disposal by the Government of India. In some cases, there have, been even a plurality of writ petitions challenging governmental actions. Needless to add, the unsatisfactory orders by the Government of India generates problems not only for the Government but also for the citizen. The anxiety of the person concerned, and the enormous expense that may have to be incurred, in relation to such proceedings, can easily be reckoned. The defence of such cases would consume time and energy on the part of the Government and its officials, which could be utilised for better purposes. 20. It is doubtful whether there is adequate realisation on the part of those entrusted with this great responsibility, about the onerous and responsible duty cast on them. Mark, at the risk of repetition, that the Government of India, is the sole authority for the decision of the question, and that none of the courts have the authority or competence to consider and adjudicate upon such a question. A stereo-typed order with a set pattern would not do duty for a speaking order, with reference made to the pleadings, with advertence to the evidence, with a satisfactorily detailed discussion of the contentions, and the enumeration of the reasons leading to the ultimate conclusion. It is such an order, that evidences an application of the mind in relation to an important right of a petitioning person. A reasoned order will have its own effect on the court called upon to consider its legality and validity. More than all that, it gives satisfaction even to the person receiving an adverse order, that he had had a fair and proper deal before the appropriate authority. 21. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were mostly illiterate and that it was in ignorance of their rights and remedies that they chanced to obtain Pakistani Passports. More than all that, it gives satisfaction even to the person receiving an adverse order, that he had had a fair and proper deal before the appropriate authority. 21. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were mostly illiterate and that it was in ignorance of their rights and remedies that they chanced to obtain Pakistani Passports. Reliance was placed on the observations of Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. in Mohammed Ahmed v. State of Kerala, 1983 KLT 1009, reading: "Even the question of bona fides cannot be decided in the abstract solely on the fact of pendency of application under both the provisions; but it will have to be considered in the light of several circumstances as, in this case, where the petitioner pleads illiteracy, ignorance and wrong advice given by his friends and when he was aware of only his rights, not his remedy and when he was more anxious to remain in India rather than leave the country. Bona fides of the applicant may be one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration; but it cannot be the sole consideration." With great respect, I am unable to approve of the approach indicated in the above observations. A person acquiring a foreign passport, and possessing it for a considerable period in a foreign country, enjoying the benefits and advantages arising out of such a passport, cannot be heard to say, casually and in a light-hearted manner, that he chanced to possess it as a result of his illiteracy, his ignorance or his gullibility. When the Parliament has consciously and deliberately provided that possession of a foreign passport would be conclusive evidence about a person having voluntarily acquired a foreign citizenship, it would require a cogent plea and compulsively convincing materials, to overpower such a statutory presumption. That is the effect of the decisions in relation to conclusive evidence as understood in law. This legal principle rightly relied on in ordinary litigation and in all courts regardless of the small ness of the interest involved in the litigation cannot be easily overlooked while evaluating a matter like a citizenship claim which has got far reaching effect and impact on the safety and security of the Nation. 22. It is well to remember that in relation to this delicate area, Parliament has been particular to restrict the area of operation of evidentiary materials in certain situations. 22. It is well to remember that in relation to this delicate area, Parliament has been particular to restrict the area of operation of evidentiary materials in certain situations. Possession of an alien passport has strong and drastic consequences in the scheme of things. That is necessarily so. An examination of the provisions of Pakistan Law as discussed by the Supreme Court (and referred to earlier) would clearly demonstrate that passport is not a document which could be had for the mere asking of it. 23. It is seen that quite often, the observations of the Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. Commissioner, AIR 196S SC 1623, torn out of context, are relied on by the petitioners in their attempt at the demolition of the Government of India decision. Sometimes even courts may unwittingly be attracted by the isolated glitter of the passage, without adequate attention on other aspects. id Ayub Khan's case there was a plea of compulsion. That plea was directed to be examined. Force, fraud or misrepresentation, are all matters which require specific plea with supporting particulars. The onus is heavy, very heavy, on the persons who set up such a plea. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. observed in 1983 KLT 1009 supra, a case where fraud is set up: "Probably evidence may have to be adduced." (emphasis supplied) This, again, with great respect, is liable to be misunderstood. Presumably the very elaborate decision in AIR. 1963 SC 1052 supra, and in particular observations of Gajendragadker, C. J. on the effect of conclusive evidence afforded by the possession of Pakistan Passport, had not been effectively brought to the notice of the learned Judge. There cannot be any doubt that strong evidence is required for establishing fraud, force or misrepresentation. 24. The Civil Procedure Code, by 0.6 R.4, insists on the specification of particulars with dates and items, if necessary, on such matters. Authoritative text books on Contract, and on specified topics (such as Fraud or Misrepresentation) clearly bring out the necessity for specific plea and substantial evidence. 25. In the light of the above. discussion, the writ petitions will stand disposed of with the following directions: 1. The Government of India shall dispose of the applications within a period of six months from today. 2. The petitioners shall, within two weeks, make available any further documents or other items of evidence in support of their claims. 3. 25. In the light of the above. discussion, the writ petitions will stand disposed of with the following directions: 1. The Government of India shall dispose of the applications within a period of six months from today. 2. The petitioners shall, within two weeks, make available any further documents or other items of evidence in support of their claims. 3. The officials of the State Government shall also submit any further materials or other items of evidence to the Government of India within a period of one month. 4. The Government shall furnish to the petitioners a gist of the report together with a reference to the documents if any relied on by them. 5. As far as practicable, one of the officials of the Government of India shall fix a camp sitting at Calicut, Cannanore or Cochin where the petitioners will be given reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence. (It will certainly be open to the Government of India to discountenance any attempts at prolonging the hearing. If adjournments are sought by the petitioners, the adjourned sitting need not be at the camps as indicated above). 6. The Government of India will pass a speaking order in the light of the observations contained above. In passing the orders, the heavy burden which lies on the holders of foreign passport as indicated earlier, can be borne in mind by the Government of India. 7. The deportation proceedings in relation to the petitioners will be kept in abeyance pending final orders passed by the Government of India, and for two weeks from the date of despatch of such orders by registered post. It will be open to the Government of India to send copies of such orders to the State Police officials with direction to personally serve such orders on the petitioners themselves. Such service can be effected on the members of their family, in case service on the person concerned is found difficult. 26. A few more observations appear to be necessary before concluding the judgment. A pressing necessity for the Government of India to up-date the law and its working, in the light of the experience of the past three decades, is clearly made out. The Director of Public Prosecution pointed out that the Law Commission has already submitted a working paper suggesting changes in the law. A pressing necessity for the Government of India to up-date the law and its working, in the light of the experience of the past three decades, is clearly made out. The Director of Public Prosecution pointed out that the Law Commission has already submitted a working paper suggesting changes in the law. Counsel appearing for the Central Government was, however, unable to give any information whether any follow-up action had been taken. The inaction on the part of the Government of India in relation to the suggestions made by this Court in 1983 KLT 1009 supra has been already commented upon earlier. It is to be hoped that those who have got the greatest responsibility in securing the safety of the nation in these trying times may drive out the inertia wherever it may be seen to lie. 27. On 21st October, 1805, exactly 181 years prior to the date this judgment is handed down, a great patriot and a great fighter, hours before he breathed his last in a pitched battle, wrote his last and memorable message: "England expects every man to do his duly." The words have had their appeal to all who have thoughts about their country and fought for it. Judicial minds too got inspiration out of them. One of the greatest figures in the legal world, Lord Denning, openly acknowledges it in his latest work 'Leaves from the Library An English Anthology.' He referred to the sentence as "one of the most effective pieces of English prose " There is no reason why all those concerned with the future and the progress of this country could not in a firmer voice, exhort, and even command: "India expects everyone to do his duty."