Skip to main content

Citizenship - By Isha

 Citizenship – By Isha 


The Constitution provides for single and uniform citizenship for the whole of India. In federal States like USA and Switzerland, there is a dual citizenship, viz., the federal or national citizenship and the citizenship of the State where a person is born or permanently resides. Central Government has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the question of citizenship. Any state Government or court has no power in this regard.


The population is divided into two classes – citizens and non-citizens. Non-citizens do not enjoy all rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Indian citizens exclusively possess the following rights.

  1. The fundamental rights.

  2. Privileges to Officers such as those of the President (Article 58); Vice President (Article 66); Judge of the Supreme Court ( Article 124) or a High Court ( Article 217); Attorney General ( Article 76); Governor ( Article 157).

  3. The right to vote (Article  326) ; the right to become a member of Parliament ( Article 84) and State Legislature ( Article 191).


The non-citizens are deprived from such rights.

The Citizenship Act, 1955, provides for the acquisition of citizenship in the following ways:

  1. Every person born in India on or after January 1959,but before July, 1987; and those born on or after July, 1987 but before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 and also those born on or after the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 shall be a citizen of India by birth. Citizenship by birth can be acquired by such persons only if either of his parents is a citizen of India at the time of birth.

  2. A person who was born outside India on or after January 26, 1950 but before commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1992 shall be a citizen of India by descent, if his father is a citizen of India at the time of the person’s birth or on or after such commencement if either of his parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth. 

  3.  A person can get Indian Citizenship by registering himself to that effect, if he belongs to any of the following categories –

  • Persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in India for seven years immediately before making an application for registration.

  • Persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in any country or place outside undivided India. 

  • Persons who are married to Indian citizens and ordinary resident in India and such persons must have been resident for seven years before making such an application.

  • Minor children of persons who are Indian citizens.

  1. Citizenship can also be acquired by naturalisation. The qualifications for naturalisation are:

  • The person must not belong to a country where Indian citizens are prevented from becoming citizens by naturalisation.

  • The person must either be resided in India or should have been in Government service for 12 months before making an application specified under Third Schedule of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

  1. If any new territory becomes a part of India, the person’s of the territory become citizens of India.


The Citizenship Act, 1955 also lays down the following ways in which citizenship of India may be lost:

  1. If a citizen renounces citizenship.

  2. If a citizen of India voluntarily acquires citizenship of another country.

  3. If Indian citizenship had been acquired by fraud or if an Indian citizen has shown himself to be disloyal and disaffected towards the Constitution of India.


The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2003 provides for the Dual Citizenship for the people of Indian origin in 16 specified countries. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2005 recognises the Overseas Citizenship and provides for their registration in India.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more