Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 98 (MEG)

Nityananda Malik v. State of Meghalaya

2014-05-15

S.R.SEN

body2014
Order Mrs. M Dev the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are the Indian citizens by birth as they were born and brought up within the Indian Territory and it a fact that their forefathers came to India decades long ago. But unfortunately, the names of these petitioners were not included in the Electoral Roll and their citizenship certificates issued by the Government of India were seized by the Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District on the ground that they are doubtful Indian citizens. 2. I have perused the affidavits filed by the State as well the affidavit filed by the Union of India. 3. Mr. S Sen Gupta, the learned State counsel as well as Mr. R Debnath, the learned CGC are present before this Court and both the learned counsel could not place any materials to substantiate that these petitioners entered India after 1971. 4. As per the affidavit filed by the State at Paragraphs 14 & 16, it is clearly stated that: “14. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph 19 of the writ petition, I beg to state that nowhere it has been mentioned that the Syiem of Khyrim has granted permanent rehabilitation. This fact can be seen from the letter dated 29.05.1961 issued by the Office of the Executive Committee District Council United Khasi Jaintia Hills which clearly states that the refugees family are not given permanent but temporary settlement for the 36 numbers of refugees family. Copy of which is annexed at Annexure-2. 16. That the statement made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, I beg to state that the petitioners applied for enrolment as voter. It is seen from the letter dated 29.05.1961 that the petitioners are not the permanent citizen but where being rehabilitated temporary by the District Council for a short term settlement only. I am also to say that the possession of dwelling house of this lease agreement granted by the Syiem of Khyrim are not sufficient to prove that the petitioners are the citizens of India.” 5. Therefore, as per the affidavit mentioned above, it is an admitted fact that the forefathers of the petitioners came to India in 1961 and they have been allowed to rehabilitate temporarily. If it is so, definitely they have shifted to India much more prior to 1971. 6. Therefore, as per the affidavit mentioned above, it is an admitted fact that the forefathers of the petitioners came to India in 1961 and they have been allowed to rehabilitate temporarily. If it is so, definitely they have shifted to India much more prior to 1971. 6. On further perusal of the affidavit filed by the Union of India at Paragraph-2 Clause (a) & (b) it is clearly mentioned that: “a. On receipt of the copy of the writ petition, the state Government had been requested on addressing the letter No. 4/9/2010-NE-II, dated 08.09.2011 to defend the case and protect the Central Govt. interest in the case. In response to our communication as stated above, the Government of Meghalaya vide their letter No. EL/59/2007/415, dated 31st October 2011, informed to the Government of India that the counter affidavit has been filed and the Government of Meghalaya is contesting the case. b. As regard to the citizenship issue, it is pertinent to mention here that as per understanding between India and Bangladesh, person who came to India on or before 24.03.1971 will not be sent back to Bangladesh and who came on or after 25.03.1971 will be deported to Bangladesh. In the instant case, as per submission made by the Government of Meghalaya, the petitioners and their forefathers were not permanent citizen, but were rehabilitated temporarily by the District Council for a short period. The answering respondent is responsible for Broad policy matter pertaining to issue of Citizenship as agreed between India and Bangladesh. The date of the residency of the petitioners is to be verified by the State authorities from their revenue records for which the State of Meghalaya was requested on 22.05.2012 to send proposals if any, to the Foreigner Division, MHA for considering the issue of Citizenship. As stated above, the stand of the Government of India has been communicated to the counsel vide communication dated, 22.05.2012, 24.07.2013 and 25.03.2014 respectively for disposal of the writ petition.” 7. On perusal of the contents of the affidavits referred to above, it is clear that there was an understanding between India and Bangladesh that, those persons who came to India on or before 24.03.1971 will not be sent back to Bangladesh but those who came after 25.03.1971 will have to be deported to Bangladesh. On perusal of the contents of the affidavits referred to above, it is clear that there was an understanding between India and Bangladesh that, those persons who came to India on or before 24.03.1971 will not be sent back to Bangladesh but those who came after 25.03.1971 will have to be deported to Bangladesh. If it is so, it is clearly understood that the forefathers of the petitioners entered India much more before 24.03.1971. As such, there is no question to deport them back at this stage as they have acquired right of permanent rehabilitation in a village called Amjong as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. As per the submissions advanced by the learned counsel and on perusal of the petition as well as affidavits discussed above, one point is clear that the petitioners herein are no more Bangladeshi citizens and there is no scope to order for their deportation. In such a circumstances, it is the duty of the Government of Meghalaya as well as the Government of India to give them proper rehabilitation and not to disturb their citizenships. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that the citizenship certificates of the petitioners issued by the Government of India have been seized by the Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District is hereby directed to return petitioners citizenship certificates within 1(one) week from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Further, the names of the petitioners should also be enrolled in the Electoral Roll accordingly before the next election. 11. With these observations and directions, this instant writ petition is allowed and the matter stands disposed of.