It would be pertinent to note that in a very significant move with far reaching implications, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Mohd Khalil Qazi and anr v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and anr in OWP No.114/1990 that was reserved on 23.04.2024 and then finally pronounced on 09.05.2025 has been most upfront in upholding the deportation of a married Pakistani couple who had been residing in Srinagar since 1988 on the strength of visa extensions and a 1990 order that had stayed their deportation out of India. It must be mentioned that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mrs Justice Sindhu Sharma dismissed a decades-old writ petition that had been filed by the couple in 1990 after taking into account the glaring fact that even though they may have had Indian roots, but they have voluntarily acquired Pakistani citizenship since then. The Bench noted that there is nothing to suggest that their requests for the grant of Indian citizenship had been accepted.
It must be borne in mind that the Bench relied on Section 9(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, to underscore that any Indian citizen who voluntarily acquires citizenship of another country ceases to be an Indian citizen. We also need to note that in this leading case, the Bench found that there was nothing to suggest that the couple’s repeated requests for Indian citizenship had been accepted, nor had they formally applied for Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act. We thus see that the Bench deemed it fit to upheld the Indian government’s 1989 decision to deport the petitioners, namely Mohammad Khalil Qazi and Arifa Qazi, out of India to Pakistan and dismissed the petition of petitioners. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mrs Justice Sindhu Sharma of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth the purpose of the petition mentioning that, “Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:-
“(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari declaring the action of the respondents to deport the petitioners as illegal unconstitutional and invalid under law.
(ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to deport the petitioners from the territories of J &K (India).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that, “Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 was born in Srinagar on February 7, 1945, and belongs to a family of permanent residents and landholders of J&K State. His grandfather was issued a State subject certificate by His Highness Govt. of J&K vide order No. 111 of 1977. During the partition of India, petitioner’s father was doing business in Rawalpindi, Pakistan and due to the 1948 India-Pakistan war, the petitioner, then a four-year-old child, was stranded in Pakistan. Neither the petitioner nor his family could return to Srinagar, leading to involuntary acquisition of Pakistani nationality due to compelling circumstances beyond his control. Similarly, Petitioner No. 2 was born in Srinagar on 23.04.1962 and claims to be a permanent resident of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, along with her parents. She also was having an Indian passport No. A 704381 issued on 30.05.1986. Being a cousin of Petitioner No. 1, she married him in Rawalpindi in December 1986. Following the marriage, Petitioner No. 2 alleges that she faced serious and cruel treatment from her in-laws. Despite this, Petitioner No. 1 remained sympathetic toward her. The in-laws also allegedly deprived petitioner No. 1 of his business, making their life together highly insecure and marked by mental anguish and anxiety.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 3 observing that, “It is stated that on the basis of their Pakistani passports, the petitioners returned to Srinagar in the month of July, 1988 along with their minor son. Upon arrival, they were issued Residential Permits Nos. RP223/88 and RP224/88 dated 27.07.1988 by the Superintendent of Police, CID, Srinagar, signifying official acknowledgment of their presence and temporary stay. It is stated that n view of their stated plight in Pakistan and their pre-existing legal status as permanent residents, the petitioners expressed a desire to continue residing in Srinagar. Their applications for an extended stay were considered, and the competent authority (Respondent) granted three successive extensions of thirty days each, vide the following orders:
· Home/156/88/visa dated 29.08.1988
· Home/156/88/visa dated 15.09.1988
· Home/156/88/visa dated 07.10.1988.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 4 that, “These extensions collectively permitted their stay in Srinagar until 01.11.1988. Subsequent to the expiry of the initial extensions, the petitioners applied for a further extension of stay and simultaneously approached the authorities for resumption of Indian citizenship, relying on their permanent resident status and other equitable considerations. A detailed representation in this regard was submitted on 18.06.1989. Thereafter, besides applying for extension for their stay, the petitioners also approached the respondents for resumption of their Indian Citizenship. On the basis of the representation dated 18.06.1989, the respondent No.1 vide its communication dated 26.12.1989, referred the matter for grant of Indian citizenship to respondent No. 2 and during the pendency of the said communication, an order of deportation came to be issued by the respondents against the petitioners.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 10 that, “The petitioner No. 1 claims to be born in Srinagar on February 7, 1945, but submit but that he had involuntary acquired Pakistani nationality due to the fact that during partition, his father was doing business in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Petitioner No.2 claims to be a citizen of India on the ground that she was born in Srinagar on 23rd April, 1962, and holding an Indian passport number A704381 issued in her favour her on 30th May, 1986. She had married to her cousin (petitioner No. 1) in Rawalpindi in December 1986, and thereafter travelled to Srinagar along with their son on Pakistani passports.”
Most significantly, most forthrightly and so also most rationally, the Bench encapsulates in para 16 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “In view of Section 9(1), a citizen who voluntarily acquires citizenship of another country after commencement of the 1955 Act or between 26th January, 1950 and date of commencement of the 1955 Act, upon such acquisition, such citizenship automatically cease to be citizen of India. Petitioner No. 1 ceased to be a citizen of India as he migrated to Pakistan and is a citizen of Pakistan. Petitioner No. 2 has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after her marriage and their son is a citizen of Pakistan by birth. Therefore, immediately upon acquiring the citizenship of Pakistan, they cease to be citizens of India. Thus, voluntary acquisition of citizenship of another country by an Indian citizen results in the termination of his Indian citizenship.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 17 that, “Petitioner No. 1 is admittedly a citizen of Pakistan and chosen to remain so till date after his marriage to petitioner No. 2, he visited India in July 1988. Petitioner No. 2 voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after her marriage. Both the petitioners had travelled to India in 1988 along with their son on Pakistani Passport. They were issued residential permits for temporary stay which were extended till 01.11.1988. Their request for further extension of visa was rejected by the respondents and deportation order was issued.”
Truth be told, the Bench then discloses in para 18 that, “The petitioners submit that they have sought citizenship of India, in support of their claim, have relied upon several communications. One such communication, dated June 1989, was addressed by the petitioners to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, seeking the grant of Indian citizenship. Another communication, dated 26.12.1989, was addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, wherein the petitioners claim to have sought the grant of Indian citizenship in favour of petitioner No. 1. However, upon perusal of the latter communication, it is observed that it bears no signature from any competent authority.”
It merits mentioning that the Bench while citing the relevant case law points out in para 20 that, “Admittedly, the petitioners are staying in India, Srinagar on the strength of the fact that the orders of deportation was stayed by this Court vide order dated 25.04.1990. The petitioners having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another country in terms of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act 1955 and being aware of their status had entered the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In Izhar Ahmad Khan vs. Union of India, reported as 1962 (3) SCR 235, it has been as under:-
“17.There is no ambiguity about the effect of this section. It is clear that the voluntary acquisition by an Indian citizen of the citizenship of another country terminates his citizenship of India, provided the said voluntary acquisition has taken place between the 26th January, 1950 and the commencement of the Act, or takes place thereafter.””
While citing yet another recent, remarkable and relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 21 that, “In Union of India vs. Pranav Srinivasan reported as 2024 Online Sc 2920, it has been held as under:-
In view of Section 9(1), those citizens of India who voluntarily acquire citizenship of another Country after the commencement of the 1955 Act, or between 26th January 1950 and the date of the commencement of the 1955 Act, upon acquisition of such citizenship, automatically cease to be citizens of India. It is not in dispute that Pranav’s parents acquired Singapore citizenship on 19th December 1998, before his birth when he was in the womb. Therefore, immediately after the voluntary acquisition of Singapore citizenship, Pranav’s parents ceased to be citizens of India by the operation of Section 9(1).”
Most remarkably, the Bench makes no bones to point out in para 22 holding that, “The petitioners have acted in their own volition acquired the citizenship of a foreign Country. Their passports and the residential permit issued in their favour are cogent, unequivocal evidence of the fact that the petitioners are not citizens of India and, as such, orders to deport them were valid.”
Above all and far most significantly, the Bench is most unequivocal in holding in para 23 that, “The petitioners have not placed on record any documentary proof of the fact that they had applied for the citizenship in terms of the Citizenship Act or Rules. There is thus, clear evidence to explain the fact that the petitioners on the strength of passport of Pakistan and Visa, permission were granted to them to visit India. There is nothing on record to suggest that their request for grant of citizenship of India has been accepted. They are staying in India on the strength of Pakistani passports, the period of which has expired and after expiry of the extension of their stay they had to return to their country. The petitioners are residing in Srinagar since 1988 and during this period they have not placed anything on record to show that they are citizens of this Country.”
Finally and as a corollary, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding most succinctly in para 24 that, “In view of the aforementioned discussion, the instant petition is found to be without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.”
Sanjeev Sirohi
