{"id":197948,"date":"1975-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975"},"modified":"2018-06-15T16:53:42","modified_gmt":"2018-06-15T11:23:42","slug":"gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975","title":{"rendered":"Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 972, \t\t 1975 SCR (3) 425<\/div>\n
Author: H R Khanna<\/div>\n
Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGANGADHAR YESHWANT  BHANDARE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nERASMO DE JESUS SEQUIRIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/02\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR  972\t\t  1975 SCR  (3) 425\n 1975 SCC  (1) 544\n\n\nACT:\nGoa, Daman and Diu Citizenship Order, 1962--cl. 3A--Passport\nissued\tby,  a foreign country to be  surrendered  before  a\ncertain date--Government specifically asked a citizen not to\nsurrender  foreign passport--Services of citizen used  in  a\ntop  secret mission--Whether retention of  foreign  passport\ndeprived him of Indian Citizenship.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nClause\t(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu  (Citizenship)  Order,\n1962 states that every person who or either of whose parents\nwas  born  before  the 20th day of  December,  1961  in\t the\nterritories  now  comprised in the union territory  of\tGoa,\nDaman  and Diu shall be deemed to have become a\t citizen  of\nIndia-\ton that day.  The proviso to that clause  says\tthat\nany such person shall not be deemed to have become a citizen\nof India as aforesaid if within one month, from the date  of\npublication of the order that person makes a declaration  in\nwriting\t that  he  chooses  to\tretain\tthe  citizenship  or\nnationality which he had: immediately before the 20th day of\nDecember,  1961.  In December 1962 clause (3A)\twas,inserted\nin  Schedule  3 to the Citizenship Rules which\tstates\tthat\nwhere a person who has become an Indian citizen by virtue of\nthe  1962 Citizenship Order holds a passport issued  by\t the\nGovernment  of\tany other country the fact that he  has\t not\nsurrendered the said passport on or before January 19,\t1963\nshall be conclusive proof of his having voluntarily acquired\nthe citizenship of that country before that date.\nIn  his\t election petition the appellant alleged.  that\t the\nrespondent chose to maintain his Portuguese nationality\t and\ncitizenship by making a declaration in writing on April\t 27,\n1962.\tThereafter,  he proceeded on foreign  travel  as  an\nalien on the basis of the Portuguese passport issued to\t him\nby  the former Portuguese administration. which was  renewed\nupto  July 17, 1964 in London.\tIt was further alleged\tthat\nthe  respondent\t obtained his alien  residential  permit  in\nIndia  and  that  he deliberately failed  to  surrender\t his\nPortuguese  passport before January 19,1963 as\trequired  by\ncl.  3A\t of the Amending Rules, 1962.  It was  also  alleged\nthat  the communication of the Goa administration  that\t the\nrespondent  had\t prima facie become a citizen  of  India  by\nvirtue\tof  the\t Citizenship,  Order  was  not\tcorrect\t and\ncontrary to the documentary evidence.\nThe  Judicial Commissioner held (i) that the respondent\t was\nentrusted with, a secret mission on behalf of the Government\nof  India and it was in that connection that he was made  to\nsign  the  declaration\tdated April 27, 1962  and  that\t the\ndeclaration was not made voluntarily; (ii) that the  renewal\nof  the\t Portuguese passport did not imply  loss  of  Indian\ncitizenship;  (iii)  that the retention\t of  the  Portuguese\npassport  after\t January  19, 1963  was\t due  to  compelling\nreasons\t and that the Government of India must be deemed  to\nhave  given its decision that the respondent was  an  Indian\ncitizen.\nDismissing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD : (1) According to the Special Adviser to the  Military\nGovernor  who  later  became  Special  Adviser\tto  the\t Lt.\nGovernor, the declaration of the respondent dated April\t 27,\n1962 that he chose to retain the Portuguese citizenship\t and\nnationality  was signed by him only by way of  formality  in\nview of the fact that the Special Adviser had decided to use\nthe  respondent\t in  a top secret  matter  relating  to\t the\nsecurity  of  India.   The respondent was  involved  with  a\nPortuguese lady and that fact provided a cover for  carrying\nout the assignment.  The respondent retained his  Portuguese\npassport and obtained residential permits to stay in Goa  as\na foreigner till January. 1964\n426\nat  the\t instance of the Special Adviser so  that  he  could\ncarry  out  the assignment entrusted to him.   He  had\tgone\nabroad\tin  1963  in connection with  the  assignment  on  a\nPortuguese  passport under the instructions of\tthe  Special\nAdviser.  The respondent renewed the Portuguese passport  in\nLondon\tunder  instructions  of the  'Special  Adviser.\t  On\nrespondents  return he was asked by the Special\t Adviser  to\nretain his passport till such time as it was decided to\t use\nhim  again  or\tasked him to  relinquish  it.\tThe  Special\nAdviser\t was competent to ask the respondent to\t retain\t his\nPortuguese   passport\tand  to\t proceed   on\ttop   secret\nassignment.[431 E-H]\n(2)  The  words\t \"as agreed\" appearing on the  letter  dated\nApril  27, 1962 addressed by the respondent to\tthe  Special\nAdviser\t go  to\t show  that it\twas  in\t pursuance  of\tsome\narrangement  between the Special Adviser and the  respondent\n,that  the latter was retaining his Portuguese passport\t and\nvisiting  Portugal.   The note made by the  Special  Adviser\nexpressly  refers  to  the fact that  the  respondent  after\nreturning  from his foreign trip was to take over an  Indian\npassport  and renounce Portuguese nationality.\t No  express\nreference  to  the  secret mission, in the  very  nature  of\nthings,\t could\tbe expected either in the letter or  in\t the\nnote.  it  was obviously essential for the  success  of\t the\nsecret mission that things should not be divulged by  making\nthem explicit. [433G-H]\n(3)  No\t  question  of\tsharing\t of  the  expenses  of\t the\nrespondent would arise if the respondent was not undertaking\na  trip\t for reasons connected with the affairs\t the  State.\n[434A]\n(4)  The  evidence on record proves that the respondent\t was\nentrusted with a secret mission on behalf of the  Government\nof  India and it was in that connection that he was made  to\nsign the declaration dated April 27, 1962.  The intention of\nthe respondent at the time he signed the declaration was not\nto  become  a  Portuguese national  but\t to  acquire  Indian\nnationality. [434D]\n(5)  The declaration dated April 27, 1962 and the  retention\nof the passport by the respondent after January, 1963  could\nnot  have  the\teffect of depriving the\t respondent  of\t the\nbenefit\t of  Indian citizenship.  But  for  the\t declaration\ndated April 27, 1962 the respondent according to cl. (2)  of\nthe  Citizenship  Order\t would be deemed to  have  become  a\ncitizen of India on December 20, 1961.\tThe declaration\t was\nsigned by him because of the secret mission which had  'been\nentrusted  to  him  in connection with the  affairs  of\t the\nState.\t It  cannot, therefore be said that  the  choice  to\nretain\t Portuguese   nationality  as  expressed   ,in\t his\ndeclaration  dated  April  27, 1962  and  January  19,\t1963\nrepresented  his real choice exercised by  him\tvoluntarily.\n[435D; 434H; 435A-B]\n(6)  The Judicial Commissioner was right in considering\t the\ndeclaration  dated April 27, 1962 and the letter dated\tJuly\n27.  1970  from\t the Ministry of Home Affairs  that  he\t had\nbecome\tprima  facie  a citizen of India  as  a\t certificate\nissued\tby  the\t Central  Government  under  s.\t 13  of\t the\nCitizenship  Act.   It\tis  also  plain\t that  the'  Central\nGovernment  reaffirmed its decision that the respondent\t had\nprima  facie become a citizen of India in spite of the\tfact\nthat the Central Government was informed about the making of\ndeclaration  dated April 27, 1962.  Letters dated  July\t 26,\n1970  and  July 27, 1970 though they did not profess  to  be\ncertificates  issued  under s. 13 and though the  latter  of\nthese  two letters recites that there was no necessity of  a\ncertificate, clearly incorporate the view of the  Government\nof  India that the respondent was an Indian citizen.  [437G;\nC; 438C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 991 of 1973.
\nFrom  the judgment and order dated the 16th March,  1973  of
\nthe ,,Court of Judicial Commr., Goa Daman & Diu in  Election
\nPetition No. 1 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
V.   R.\t Bhandare, V. N. Ganpule and Urmila Sirur,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
A. K. Sen and S. R. Agrawala, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
427<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKHANNA, J.-The short question which arises for determination
\nin  this  appeal   against  the\t judgment  of  the  Judicial
\nCommissioner  Goa, Daman & Diu dismissing petition filed  by
\nGangadhar  Yeshwant  Bhandare  appellant  to  question\t the
\nelection  of Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria respondent to the\t Lok
\nSabha  is whether the said respondent at the  relevant\ttime
\nwas a citizen of India.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondent was declared elected to the Lok\t Sabha\tfrom
\nthe  Moraugao  parliamentary constituency in  the  elections
\nheld  in  March 1971.  The appellant who  had  been  validly
\nnominated  as  a  candidate at the election  for  the  above
\nconstituency  withdrew his candidature and did\tnot  contest
\nthe  said  election.  After the result of the  election\t had
\nbeen declared, the appellant filed election petition to have
\nthe  election of the respondent declared void on the  ground
\nthat  on  the date of the election the\trespondent  was\t not
\nqualified  to be chosen to fill a parliamentary\t seat  under
\nthe  Constitution  of India and the  Representation  of\t the
\nPeople\tAct, 1951 as the respondent on that date was  not  a
\ncitizen\t of India and not an elector as contemplated by\t the
\nRepresentation\tof the People Act, 1951.  According  to\t the
\nappellant,  prior  to  December\t 20,  1961  when  the  Union
\nTerritory  of  Goa,  Daman  & Diu  was\tliberated  from\t the
\nPortuguese domination and became a part of the Indian  Union
\nthe  said  territory  was a Portuguese\tpossession  and\t the
\nrespondent was Portuguese citizen.  Following the liberation
\nand  merger of that territory with the Union of\t India,\t the
\nGovernment  of India in exercise of the powers conferred  by
\nsection\t 7 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 issued on March\t 28,
\n1962   Goa,   Daman  and  Diu  (Citizenship)   Order,\t1962
\n(hereinafter  referred to as Citizenship  Order)  conferring
\nthe  citizenship  of  India on persons\tborn  in  the  above
\nmentioned  territory before December 20, 1961 on  the  terms
\nand  conditions set out in the order.  The relevant part  of
\nclause 2 of that order was as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Every person who or either of whose  parents,
\n\t      or any of whose grand parents was born  before
\n\t      the  twentieth  day of December  1961  in\t the
\n\t      Territories   now\t comprised  in\t the   Union
\n\t      Territory\t of  Goa,  Daman and  Diu  shall  be
\n\t      deemed  to have become a citizen of  India  on
\n\t      that day.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided\tthat  any such person shall  not  be
\n\t      deemed  to have become a citizen of  India  as
\n\t      aforesaid if within one month from the date of
\n\t      publication  of  this Order  in  the  Official
\n\t      gazette  that  person makes a  declaration  in
\n\t      writing to the Administrator of Goa, Daman and
\n\t      Diu or any other authority specified by him in
\n\t      this  behalf  that he chooses  to\t retain\t the
\n\t      citizenship   or\tnationality  which  he\t had
\n\t      immediately   before  the\t twentieth  day\t  of
\n\t      December, 1961;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tstated\tthat the respondent chose  to  maintain\t his
\nPortuguese   nationality   and\tcitizenship  by\t  making   a
\ndeclaration  in writing dated April 27, 1962 as required  by
\nthe  above clause.  The respondent thereafter  proceeded  on
\nforeign\t travel\t as an alien on the basis  of  a  Portuguese
\npassport issued to him on or about June 25, 1958 by the
\n428<\/span>
\nformer Portuguese Administration.  As the said passport\t was
\ndue to expire on June 21, 1962 the respondent on arrival  in
\nLondon\tin  June 1962 applied to the  Portuguese  Consul  in
\nLondon\tfor a new Portuguese passport which was\t granted  to
\nhim on June 18, 1962.  The new passport was valid up to June
\n17, 1964.  The respondent returned to India in October\t1962
\nand as an alien applied for and obtained residential  permit
\nin India, The permit was renewed from time to time.
\nOn  December 20, 1962 the Central Government  published\t the
\nCitizenship (Amendment) Rules, 1962 and inserted in Schedule
\nIII to the Citizenship Rules, 1956 clause 3A which reads  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3-A.   Where  a\tperson, who  has  become  an
\n\t      Indian citizen by virtue of the Goa, Daman and
\n\t      Diu (Citizenship) Order, 1962 or the Dadra and
\n\t      Nagar Haveli (Citizenship) Order, 1962, issued
\n\t      under  section 7 of the Citizenship Act,\t1955
\n\t      (57  of 1955), holds a passport issued by\t the
\n\t      Government of any other country, the fact that
\n\t      he has not surrendered the said passport on or
\n\t      before   the  19th  January,  1963  shall\t  be
\n\t      conclusive  proof\t of his\t having\t voluntarily
\n\t      acquired\tthe  citizenship  of  that   country
\n\t      before that date.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It   is\t  stated  by  the-appellant  that   the\t  respondent
\ndeliberately  failed  to surrender his\tPortuguese  passport
\nbefore January 19, 1963 as required under the above, clause.
\nIn  January  1964  the respondent  returned  his  Portuguese
\npassport  to  the  Special  Officer,  Ministry\tof  External
\nAffairs\t and claimed Indian citizenship.  No  reference\t was
\nmade  in that communication by the respondent, to  the\tfact
\nthat  he  had made, a declaration retaining  his  Portuguese
\ncitizenship.   On  December 15, 1964 a letter  was  sent  on
\nbehalf\tof the Administration of Goa, Daman and Diu  to\t the
\nrespondent stating that prima facie he had become a  citizen
\nof  India by virtue of the Citizenship Order.  In July\t1970
\nthe  respondent\t addressed a communication  to\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  for\t a  certificate\t under\tsection\t 13  of\t the
\nCitizenship  Act.   In response to that the  respondent\t was
\ninformed  by  letter  dated  July 27,  1970  that  the\tsaid
\ncertificate   was   not\t necessary  for\t him  as   the\t Goa
\nAdministration had already conveyed to him that he was prima
\nfacie  an  Indian citizen.  The appellant asserts  that\t the
\ninformation   conveyed\t to  the  respondent  by   the\t Goa
\nAdministration\tin  letter dated December 15, 1964  was\t not
\ncorrect and contrary to documentary evidence.  An  objection
\nwas raised at the time of scrutiny by the appellant that the
\nrespondent was not a citizen of India but that objection was
\noverruled   by\t the  Retuning\t Officer.    The   appellant
\naccordingly  prayed that the election of the  respondent  to
\nthe’ Lok Sabha be declared to be void.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondent\t in his written statement  stated  that\t the
\ndeclaration  filed by him on April 27, 1962 was not a  valid
\ndeclaration  inasmuch  as he did not choose  to\t retain\t his
\nPortuguese   nationality   and\t citizenship.\t The\tsaid
\ndeclaration  was stated to have been made by the  respondent
\nat  the request of the then Special Adviser Goa for  reasons
\nwhich  had no connection with any intention on his  part  to
\nretain the Portuguese nationality and citizenship or to lose
\nIndian
\n\t\t\t    429<\/span>
\ncitizenship.   The respondent admits that he left  India  in
\nMay  1962 and got his passport renewed from  the  Portuguese
\nConsulate  in London.  The respondent was, however,  advised
\nby his friends not to go to Portugal and consequently he did
\nnot  go\t there.\t The respondent, it is further\tstated,\t was
\ntold  by  the  Special Adviser to  continue  to\t retain\t the
\nPortuguese  passport so that he might be in a  position\t to’
\nmake  a\t later trip to Portugal.  According further  to\t the
\nrespondent,  he\t applied for a residential permit  and\tkept
\nrenewing  it from time to time as a matter of formality\t and
\nwith  the  full knowledge of the Special  Adviser  that\t the
\nrespondent   did  not  intend  to  jeopardize\this   Indian
\ncitizenship.   When  clause  3A\t in  Schedule  III  to\t the
\nCitizenship  Rules  was added, the  respondent\taddressed  a
\nletter to the Special Officer, Ministry of External  Affairs
\nto  the effect that he was retaining for the time being\t the
\nPortuguese passport and that his object was to obtain Indian
\npassport  in  due course.  The\trespondent  thereafter\tsur-
\nrendered  his Portuguese passport on January 15, 1964.\t The
\nrespondent,  it is further stated, obtained a passport as  a
\ncitizen\t of India from the Government of India\tthrough\t the
\nChief  Secretary,  Goa,\t Daman and  Diu\t in  1965.   Another
\npassport was obtained by the respondent in that capacity  in
\n1970.\t According  to\tthe  respondent,  letter  from\t Goa
\nAdministration dated December 15, 1964 and letter dated July
\n27, 1970 from the Government of India are, conclusive on the
\npoint  that he was a citizen of India.\tObjection  was\talso
\nraised\tby the respondent that clause 3A of Schedule III  to
\nthe  Citizenship Rules and the first proviso to clause 2  of
\nCitizenship  Order  were ultra vires the,  Citizenship\tAct.
\nAccording  to the respondent, he was a citizen of  India  at
\nthe  relevant  time and his election was not  liable  to  be
\ndeclared void on the ground set up by the, appellant.
\nIt  may be stated that the appellant impleaded\tbesides\t the
\nrespondent, the Returning Officer and the Union of India  as
\nrespondents  2 and 3 respectively in the election  petition.
\nRespondent  No. 2 was, deleted from the list of\t respondents
\non  July 31, 1971 on an application filed by the  appellant.
\nSo  far as the Union of India respondent No. 3 is con ,\t the
\nsaid respondent was deleted from the list of respondents  on
\nthe  application  of  the appellant   on  February  3,\t1972
\nafter  some preliminary issues had been decided\t on  October
\n15,  1971.  a written statement was filed on behalf  of\t the
\nUnion of India.\n<\/p>\n
According  to  the  Union of India,  the  respondent  signed
\ndeclaration,\tdated\t Appellant   dated    April,\t1962
\nnot,voluntarily but on the advice and at the instance of the
\nSpecial\t Adviser  Goa.\tAs regards the\tresidential  permits
\nwhich weregranted  to  the respondent,\tthe  Union  of,
\nIndia  states that those permits were issued with a,  view
\nto avoiding any complication as the respondent\theld   a
\nPortuguese passport for reasons connected with the affair of
\nthe State. The Union of India has denied     that\t the
\nrespondent acquired the Portuguese\tcitizenship\t or
\nthat he\t  ceased to be an Indiancitizen According further
\nto the Union of India’ the respondent is an Indian  citizen.
\nIndian\tpassports. are stated to have been issued in  favour
\nof, the respondent because of his being an Indian citizen.
\n13–423SCI\/75
\n430<\/span>
\nFollowing  issues  were\t framed\t by  the  learned   Judicial
\nCommissioner :\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.    “Has   this\t  Court\t  jurisdiction\t  to
\n\t      entertain the election petition?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    Is the petitioner a citizen of India?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    Did\t the  petitioner  comply  with\t the
\n\t      provisions    of\t section   81(3)   of\t the
\n\t      Representation of the People Act, 1951 and  if
\n\t      not, is the petition fit to be dismissed under
\n\t      section 86(1) of that Act?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.    Whether  the first proviso to para 2  of
\n\t      the  Goa, Daman and Diu  (Citizenship)  Order,
\n\t      1962  is\tultra  vires and in  excess  of\t the
\n\t      powers conferred by section 7 of the  Citizen-
\n\t      ship Act, 1955?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.    Was\t the first  respondent\tdisqualified
\n\t      to  be chosen as a member of the Lok Sabha  in
\n\t      March  1971  for\tthe reasons  stated  by\t the
\n\t      petitioner in the election petition ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6.    To what relief ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Issues\t1, 2 and 4 which were treated as preliminary  issues
\nwere  decided  in favour of the appellant  and\tagainst\t the
\nrespondent as per order dated October 5, 1971.\tIssue No.  3
\nwas also decided in favour of the appellant.  On issue No. 5
\nthe  learned Judicial Commissioner held that the  respondent
\nwas  entrusted\twith  a\t secret mission\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nGovernment  of India and it was in that connection  that  he
\nwas made to sign declaration dated April 27, 1962.  The said
\ndeclaration  was  not  made  voluntarily.   The\t renewal  of
\nPortuguese passport by the respondent, it was held, did\t not
\nimply the loss of Indian citizenship.  The retention of\t the
\nPortuguese passport by the respondent after January 19, 1963
\nwas found to be due to compelling reasons  In the opinion of
\nthe  Judicial Commissioner, the Government of India must  be
\ndeemed\tto  have given its decision that respondent  was  an
\nIndian\tcitizen.   The respondent was accordingly  held\t not
\nqualified  to  be chosen as a member of the Lok\t Sabha.\t the
\nelection petition was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
In appeal before us Mr. Bhandare on behalf,of\t appellant
\nhas challenged the finding of the judicial Commissionerthat
\nthe respondent did not sign declaration dated April 27,1962
\nvoluntarily    and that it was in connection with a  secrete
\nthat entrusted\tto him on behalf of the\t Government  of
\nIndia that he has  made to sign that declaration. It  is
\nurged that the respondent was not an Indian citizen  at
\nthe  relevant  time, and as such was not   qualified  to  be
\nchosen\tto fill a seat in the Parliament We have given\t our
\ncareful consideration to the submission of Mr. Bhandare\t are
\nthough\twe agree with him that as provided in article 84  of
\nthe   constitution  a person shall not be  qualified  to  be
\nchosen to fill a seat in  Parliament unless he is a  citizen
\nof  India,  we\tfind  it  difficult  to\t accept\t his   other
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
431<\/span><\/p>\n
Ex. P3 is declaration dated April 27, 1962 which,  according
\nto  the appellant, was made by the  respondent\tvoluntarily.
\nThe declaration read as under
\n\t\t\t  Panjim
\n\t\t\t  dated 27th April 1962
\nThe Sr.\t Superintendent of Police, Goa
\nPanjim
\nSir,
\n\t      I ERASMO JESUS DE SEQUEIRA aged 23 years resi-
\n\t      dent  at\tCAMPAL, PANJIM declare that  I\thave
\n\t      carefully\t  read\tthe  order  passed  by\t the
\n\t      Military\tGovernor on the 5th of\tApril,\t1962
\n\t      regarding\t the declaration of Nationality.   I
\n\t      have  also carefully perused the\tNotification
\n\t      of  the Govt. of India dated 28th March,\t1962
\n\t      which  is an order called ‘Goa, Diu and  Daman
\n\t      Citizenship Order 1962’. I accordingly declare
\n\t      that   I\tchoose\tto  retain  the\t  PORTUGUESE
\n\t      citizenship  Nationality which I\twas  holding
\n\t      immediately before the 20th of December, 1961.
\n\t      1,  therefore,  herein  sign  my\tdeclaration,
\n\t      declaring my PORTUGUESE  citizenship……….
\n\t      Nationality.\n<\/p>\n
\t       Sd\/Erasmo Jesus De Sequeira
\n\t\t    Signature
\nThe  learned Judicial Commissioner has found that the  above
\ndeclaration  was made by the respondent not voluntarily\t and
\nthat  he  was made to sign it in connection  with  a  secret
\nmission\t entrusted  to him on behalf of\t the  Government  of
\nIndia.\t The  finding of the Judicial Commissioner  in\tthis
\nrespect is supported by the evidence of Mr. G. K. Handoo who
\nwas  appointed in December 1961 as a Special Adviser to\t the
\nMilitary Governor of Goa and who was thereafter appointed in
\nMarch  1962  Special Adviser to the Lt.\t  Governor.   Before
\nthat  Handoo  was Additional Inspector\tGeneral\t of  Police,
\nMaharashtra  and Commandant of the Border Security Force  of
\nGoa,  Daman and Diu.  He had also been dealing with  foreign
\nintelligence and security of Goa in the Ministry of External
\nAffairs.   According  to  Handoo, declaration  Ex.   P3\t was
\nsigned by the respondent only by way of formality in view of
\nthe fact that Handoo had decided to use the respondent in  a
\ntop-secret matter relating to the security of the Government
\nof, India.  The respondent, it is stated, was involved\twith
\na  Portuguese  lady  and  that fact  provided  a  cover\t for
\ncarrying out the assignment.  Handoo has further stated that
\nthe   respondent  retained  his\t Portuguese.  passport\t and
\nobtained  residential permits to stay in Goa as a  foreigner
\nfill  January  1964 at the instance of Handoo’ so  that\t the
\nrespondent. could carry out the assignment entrusted to him.
\nIt is also stated by Handoo that the respondent went  abroad
\nin 1962 in ‘connection with the assignment on a\t  Portuguese
\npassport under the instructions of Handoo.  The expenses for
\nthe above foreign trip of the respondent were, shared by the
\nGovernment  of India and the respondent.  It is\t further  in
\nthe  evidence  of  Handoo that the  respondent\trenewed\t his
\nPortuguese passport in London under the instructions of
\n432<\/span>
\nthe witness.  On his return the respondent contacted Handoo.
\nHandoo then told the respondent to retain his passport\ttill
\nsuch time as Handoo decided to use him again or asked him to
\nrelinquish it.\tHandoo adds that he was competent to ask the
\nrespondent to retain his Portuguese passport and to  proceed
\non  top-secret\tassignment.  It is also in the\tevidence  of
\nHandoo that the respondent addressed letter Ex. P4 to Handoo
\non April 27, 1962.  The letter reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t  CAMPAL
\n\t\t\t\t\t    PANJIM
\n\t\t\t      27th APRIl, 1962
\n\t      CONFIDENTIAL
\n\t      Mr. G. K. HANDoo
\n\t      SPECIAL ADVISER
\n\t      GOA
\n\t      DEAR MR.\tHANDOO:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Confirming my call on you this morning, 1,  as
\n\t      agreed,  write  to advise you that I  wish  to
\n\t      retain  my  Portuguese  passport\tNo.  ‘703\/58
\n\t      issued at Goa for the present, to enable me to
\n\t      visit Portugal and see a very personal  friend
\n\t      on a highly personal reason.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      I request that permission be granted for me to
\n\t      leave  India  on\tthis.passport,\tand.   would
\n\t      appreciate  a  reentry permit  valid  for\t six
\n\t      months being granted at the same, time.
\n\t      I\t am,  as  advised  by  you,  registering  my
\n\t      passport at the police, and I shall be  seeing
\n\t      you  to  hand over  this\tletter,\t immediately
\n\t      after.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      With compliments,
\n\t\t      Yours sincerely,
\n\t\t\t\t   Sd\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Erasmo Jesus de Sequeira”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  above letter Handoo recorded a note meant for Joshi\t who
\nwas incharge of Passport Section at Panjim.  Ile note  reads
\nas under
\n\t      “Please see.  I had spoken to you about  this.
\n\t      The applicant has to go back to Portugal\twith
\n\t      reference to his entanglement with a white  Po
\n\t      lady  and has to finally settle this  domestic
\n\t      issue and return.\t He- will, then take over an
\n\t      Indian  passport\twhich  can be issued  as  he
\n\t      will renounce Portuguese nationality.   Please
\n\t      issue  him a reentry permit as desired  at’  A
\n\t      above.”\n<\/p>\n
The statement: of thedent when he came into the witness-
\nbox  is\t similar to that of Handoo.   The  learned  Judicial
\nCommissioner  has accepted the evidence adduced\t  on  behalf
\n‘of the respon-\n<\/p>\n
433<\/span><\/p>\n
dent in this. respect, and we see no particular\t  reason  to
\ndisbelieve the same.\n<\/p>\n
Handoo\t was  a\t senior\t officer  who  dealt  with   foreign
\nintelligence  and security of Goa.  At the relevant time  he
\nwas  Special  Adviser to the Lt.  Governor.  So far  as\t the
\npresent proceedings  of the election petition are concerned,
\nhe is wholly disinterested and there appears to be no cogent
\nground whatsoever as to why he should give false evidence in
\nfavour\tof  the respondent.  As regards the  respondent,  we
\nfind  that he was subjected to lengthy and searching  cross-
\nexamination  lasting  for  11 days.   The  learned  Judicial
\ncommissioner  has commended the demeanour of the  respondent
\nin  the witness-box and has observed that  the\trespondent’s
\nclear,\tunhesitating and firm answers impressed him for\t the
\ntruthfulness.  According to the\t Judicial Commissioner,\t the
\nevidentiary value of the respondent’s statement, instead  of
\nbeing  weakened,  was  fortified  as  a\t result\t of   cross-
\nexamination.  This Court in an election appeal normally does
\nnot  interfere with the appraisement of the evidence of\t the
\nwitnesses  by  the High Court unless  such  appraisement  is
\nafflicted  with some glaring infirmity.\t After\thaving\tbeen
\ntaken through the evidence of Handoo and the respondent,  we
\nfind no reason whatsoever to take a view different from that
\ntaken\tby   the   Judicial   Commissioner   regarding\t the
\ntrustworthiness of the two witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Bhandare has drawn our attention to the suggestion which
\nwas  put in cross-examination to the respondent that he\t was
\nbeing helped by the ruling party at the Centre in the matter
\nof his citizenship and the present election petition because
\nof  the support lent by him to the ruling party since  1969.
\nIle  respondent repudiated this suggestion and we find\tthat
\napart  from this bare suggestion in cross-examination  there
\nis  no\tother  material\t on the\t record\t to  show  that\t the
\nsuggestion  was well-founded.  We further find\tthat  Handoo
\nretired\t from  Government  service  and\t did  not  hold\t any
\nofficial position after November 1962.\tHis evidence in\t the
\npresent\t proceedings  was recorded on commission  in  August
\n1972..\tHandoo being no longer in Government service at\t the
\ntime of the recording of his evidence, it is not clear as to
\nhow  he\t could be influenced by the party in  power  at\t the
\nCentre\tto give evidence in favour of the  respondent.\t The
\nevidence  of the respondent and Handoo is also borne out  by
\nthe  letter which was addressed by the respondent to  Handoo
\non  April  27,\t1962 and the note made\ton  that  letter  by
\nHandoo.\t The words ”\t as  agreed” in the above letter  go
\nto show that it was in pursuance of some arrangement between
\nHandoo and the respondent that the latter was retaining\t his
\nPortuguese passport and visiting Portugal.The note which was
\nmade  by  Handoo  expressly  refers to\tthe  fact  that\t the
\nrespondent after returning from his foreign trip was to take
\nover an Indian passport and renounce Portuguese\t nationality
\nNo  express  reference\tto the secret mission  in  the\tvery
\nnature\tof things could be expected either in the letter  or
\nin the note.  It was obviously\t   essential\t for\t the
\nsuccess of the secret mission that things should not   be
\ndivulged by making them explicit.\n<\/p>\n
The  evidence of the respondent and Handoo also shows,\tthat
\nthe  expenses  for the foreign trip of the  respondent\twere
\nborne partly by,
\n434<\/span>
\nThe  Government and, partly by the respondent.\tNo  question
\nof  sharing of those expenses by the Government would  arise
\nif the respondent was not undertaking that trip for  reasons
\nconnected  with the affairs of the State as alleged  by\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
While  dealing with the question as to what Value should  be
\nattached to the evidence adduced by the respondent, we\tmust
\nalso  bear  in mind the written statement  which  has  been)
\nfiled  on  behalf of the Union of India.  According  to\t the
\nstand taken by the Union of India, declaration dated,  April
\n27, 1962 was not signed by the respondent voluntarily but on
\nthe  advice and at the instance of the Special Adviser\tGoa.
\nThe  Union of India has further stated that the\t residential
\npermits\t were  granted\tto the respondent  with\t a  view  to
\nprevent any complication as the respondent held a Portuguese
\npassport  for  reasons\tconnected with the  affairs  of\t the
\nState.\tLooking to all the facts, we agree with the  learned
\nJudicial  Commissioner\tthat the evidence on  record  proves
\nthat  the respondent was entrusted with a secret mission  on
\nbehalf\tof  the\t Government  of India and  it  was  in\tthat
\nconnection that he was made to sign declaration dated  April
\n27, 1962.  We also Wee that the intention of the  respondent
\nat  the time he signed the declaration was not to  become  a
\nPortuguese  national but to acquire Indian  nationality\t and
\ncitizenship.\n<\/p>\n
The  evidence of Handoo and the respondent also\t establishes
\nthat it was at the instance of Handoo in connection with the
\nsecret mission entrusted to him that respondent travelled on
\na Portuguese passport in 1962 and obtained on the expiry  of
\nhis  passport a fresh passport from Portuguese Consulate  in
\nLondon in June 1962.  The evidence further establishes\tthat
\nit  was’  for the same reason that the\trespondent  did\t not
\nsurrender  his Portuguese passport on or before January\t 19,
\n1963  in accordance with clause 3A inserted in Schedule\t III
\nto  the Citizenship Rules, 1956.  The same was\tthe  reason.
\naccording  to that evidence, for the stay of the  respondent
\nin  Goa as a foreigner on residential permits  till  January
\n1964.\n<\/p>\n
It has next been argued by Mr. Bhandare that whatever  might
\nbe  the reason which might have weighed with the  respondent
\nin making declaration P3 dated April 27, 1962 regarding\t his
\nPortuguese  nationality and the retention of the  Portuguese
\npassport  till after January 19, 1963 the law must take\t its
\ncourse\tand the court should give effect to the\t proviso  to
\nclause 2 of the Citizenship Order and clause 3A of  Schedule
\nIII to the Citizenship Rules, 1956.  In accordance with\t the
\nabove  provisions,  the respondent, it is urged,  should  be
\nheld to be a Portuguese citizen and not an Indian citizen.
\nWe  are\t unable\t to accede to  the  above  submission.\t The
\nrespondent  was’  admittedly  born before the  20th  day  of
\nDecember 1961 in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and\tDiu.
\nAs  such,  but for declaration P3 signed by  him,  he  would
\naccording to clause 2 of the Citizenship Order be deemed  to
\nhave  become a citizen of India on the 20th day of  December
\n1961.\tQuestion  then arises as to what is  the  effect  of
\ndeclaration P3 made by- the respondent on April 27, 1962 and
\nthe  retention\tof  the Portuguese  passport  by  him  after
\nJanuary 19, 1963.\n<\/p>\n
435<\/span><\/p>\n
We  have found above that even though the respondent  wanted
\nto  become an Indian citizen, he signed declaration  P3\t and
\nretained  the Portuguese passport till January 1964  because
\nof  the\t secret mission which had been entrusted to  him  in
\nconnection  with  the  affairs\tof  the\t State.\t it  cannot,
\ntherefore, be said that the choice to retain Portuguese\t na-
\ntionality  as  expressed in declaration P3 as  well  as\t the
\nchoice\tto retain the Portuguese passport after January\t 19,
\n1963 represented the real choice of the respondent exercised
\nby  him\t voluntarily  and  of his  free\t volition.   On\t the
\ncontrary it was because of the necessity and the  compulsive
\nreason\tof  ensuring  the  success  of\tthe  secret  mission
\nentrusted to him in connection with the affairs of the State
\nthat  the respondent signed declaration P3 and retained\t the
\nPortuguese  passport  till  after  January  19,\t 1963.\t The
\nevidence  on  record establishes that declaration P3  was  a
\nsham declaration which did not embody the real intention  or
\nchoice of the person signing it.  It. was not intended to be
\nacted  upon  and  was signed at the  instance  of  a  senior
\nofficer acting on behalf of the Government of India  because
\nit was considered to be a necessary camouflage and cover  to
\nfacilitate the carrying out of the secret mission  entrusted
\nto  him\t in connection with the affairs of the\tState.\t The
\nsame was reason for the retention of the Portuguese passport
\nby the respondent after January 1963.  As such,\t declaration
\nP3  and\t the retention of the pass-port\t by  the  respondent
\nafter  January 1963 cannot have the effect of depriving\t the
\nrespondent  of the benefit of Indian citizenship.  It  would
\nindeed\tlook anomolous if a declaration signed in the  above
\ncircumstances were to result in the evil consequence of\t the
\nrespondent  being  denied  the right  to  become  an  Indian
\ncitizen.  wE may observe that once a declaration like P3  is
\nsigned\tby  a person and he retains  a\tPortuguese  passport
\nafter the due date, the onus would be very heavy upon him to
\nprove that the declaration was not signed by him voluntarily
\nand that the retention of the Portuguese passport by him was
\nalso not a voluntary act.  Unless he discharges that onus by
\nclear  and cogent evidence, the law would takes\t its  course
\nand  he\t would not be regarded an  Indian  citizen.   Where,
\nhowever,  as  in  the  present\tcase  the  person  concerned
\ndischarges  that  onus and it is established  by  clear\t and
\ncogent\tevidence that the real choice and intention  of\t the
\nperson\tconcerned was to become an Indian national and\tthat
\nhe signed the declaration and retained the passport  because
\nof the compulsion of a secret assignment entrusted to him in
\nconnection  with  the  affairs of the State,  he  cannot  be
\ndeprived of his entitlement to Indian citizenship.
\nWe may in the above context refer to the case of Mohd.\tAyub
\nKhan  v.  Commissioner of<\/a> police, Madras & Anr.(1)  This  in
\nthat  case was dealing with paragraph 3 of Schedule  III  to
\nthe  Citizenship  Rules,  1956\tWhich  raises  a  conclusive
\npresumption  that  a  citizen of India who  has\t obtained  a
\npassport from a foreign country on any date, has before that
\ndate voluntarily acquired citizenship of that other country.
\nReferring to that paragraph this Court observed
\n\t      “BY the application of the rule in Paragraph 3
\n\t      the  authority  must  regard  obtaining  of  a
\n\t      foreign passport on parti-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   (1965) 2 S.C.R. 884.\n<\/p>\n
\t       436<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\tcular  date :as\t conclusive  proof  that the
\n\t      Indian   citizen\thas   voluntarily   acquired
\n\t      citizenship  of  another country\tbefore\tthat
\n\t      date.  But obtaining of a passport of  foreign
\n\t      country  cannot  in  all\tcases  merely\tmean
\n\t      receiving\t the passport.\tIf a plea is  raised
\n\t      by the citizen that he had not voluntarily ob-
\n\t      tained  the  passport,  the  citizen  must  be
\n\t      afforded\tan opportunity to prove\t that  fact.
\n\t      Cases may be visualized in which on account of
\n\t      force a person may be compelled or on  account
\n\t      of  fraud\t or  misrepresentation\the  may\t  be
\n\t      induced, without any intention of renunciation
\n\t      of   his\tIndian\tcitizenship,  to  obtain   a
\n\t      passport from a foreign country.\tIt would  be
\n\t      difficult\t to say that such a passport is\t one
\n\t      which  has been ‘obtained’ within the  meaning
\n\t      of  Paragraph  3\tof  Sch.   III\tand  that  a
\n\t      conclusive presumption must arise that he\t has
\n\t      acquired\t voluntarily  citizenship  of\tthat
\n\t      country:”\n<\/p>\n
The  learned Judicial Commissioner has held that  letter  R3
\ndated July 27, 1970 taken along with other documents  should
\nbe construed as a certificate issued by the Government under
\nsection\t 13 of the Citizenship Act.  The above\tfinding\t has
\nbeen  assailed by Mr. Bhandare.\t In this connection we\tfind
\nthat  according\t to section 13 of the Citizenship  Act,\t the
\nCentral\t Government  may,  in such cases  as  it  thinks  a,
\ncertify that a person, with respect to whose citizenship  of
\nIndia  a  doubt\t exists,  is  a\t citizen  of  India-  and  a
\ncertificate  issued under this section shall, unless  it  is
\nproved\tthat  it  was obtained, by  means  of  fraud,  false
\nrepresentation\tor  concealment\t of any\t material  fact,  be
\nconclusive  evidence that that person was such a citizen  on
\nthe date thereof, but without prejudice to any evidence that
\nhe  was such a citizen at an earlier date.  The\t respondent,
\nas mentioned earlier, surrendered his Portuguese passport on
\nJanuary\t 15,  1964.  While surrendering\t his  passport,\t the
\nrespondent  wrote  letter  dated January  15,  1964  to\t the
\nSpecial\t Officer,  Ministry of\tExternal,  Affairs  claiming
\nIndian\tcitizenship.  The Ministry of External Affairs\tthen
\nreferred  the matter to the Senior Superintendent of  Police
\nPanjim.\t  Ile statement of the respondent was then  recorded
\nby  the\t police\t and the  Senior  Superintendent  of  Police
\nthereafter  made  a report.  A report was then sent  to\t the
\nMinistry  of  External\tAffairs\t by  the  Chief\t  Secretary,
\nGovernment  of Goa, Daman and Diu.  A letter was  thereafter
\nsent  on,  behalf  of the Ministry of  External\t Affairs  on
\nDecember 2, 1964 to the said Chief Secretary stating that in
\nview  of  the information supplied by the  Chief  Secretary,
\nthere was no objection to the respondent being treated as  a
\ncitizen\t of India under the Citizenship Order.\tOn  December
\n15,  1964 a communication was sent to the respondent by\t the
\nUnder  Secretary, Home Department of the Government of\tGoa,
\nDaman  and Diu that prima facie the respondent had become  a
\ncitizen\t of India by virtue of the Citizenship Order.\tMore
\nthan  four and a half years thereafter on July 1,  1969\t the
\nInspector General of Police addressed a letter to the  Chief
\nSecretary,  Government\tof  Goa,  Daman\t and  Diu  that\t the
\nrespondent  had\t made declaration P3 dated  April  27,\t1962
\nchoosing to retain Portuguese citizenship and that this fact
\nhad not been brought to the notice of the Government  before
\nletter dated December 15, 1964 was issued to the
\n4 37
\nrespondent  that  he  had prima facie became  a\t citizen  of
\nIndia.\t The  Chief Secretary thereafter  a  letter  to\t the
\nMinistry  of  Home  Affairs  and  informed  the\t  Additional
\nSecretary  in  that Ministry about the making of  the  above
\ndeclaration  by\t the  respondent.  There  was  then  further
\ncorrespondence\tbetween\t the  Government of  India  and\t the
\nGovernment  of\tGoa, Daman and Diu.  On July  26,  1970\t the
\nJoint  Secretary  to the Government of’ India,\tMinistry  of
\nHome Affairs addressed letter P52 to the respondent that the
\nmatter\tregarding his claim to Indian citizenship  had\tbeen
\nreconsidered and it had been decided that the matter  should
\nbe  treated  as\t closed.   The\tGovernment  of\tIndia\tthus
\nreaffirmed  its\t decision  which had been  conveyed  to\t the
\nrespondent  in\t1964 that the respondent  had  become  prima
\nfacie a citizen of India by virtue of the Citizenship Order.
\nIt is also plain that the Central Government reaffirmed\t its
\ndecision  that\tthe  respondent bad  prima  facie  become  a
\ncitizen\t of  India  in spite of the fact  that\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  was informed about the making of declaration  P3
\nby  the respondent on April 27, 1962.  On July Z7, 1970\t the
\nJoint  Secretary in the Ministry of Home  Affairs  addressed
\nthe following letter P3 to the respondent :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I  am directed to refer to your letter  dated
\n\t      27th  July,  1970 requesting for\tgrant  of  a
\n\t      certificate of citizenship under section 13 of
\n\t      the  Citizenship\tAct, 1955, and to  say\tthat
\n\t      since  the  Goa Administration have  in  their
\n\t      letter  No. HD9-436\/ 64 dated  15th  December,
\n\t      1964, already informed you that you have prima
\n\t      facie become a citizen of India by virtue\t of,
\n\t      the  Goa, Daman and Diu  (Citizenship)  Order,
\n\t      1962,  the  necessity of a  certificate  under
\n\t      section 13 does not arise:’
\nAs already mentioned, the learned Judicial Commissioner\t has
\nheld  that the above letter taken along with  the  preceding
\ncorrespondence\tshould be construed as a certificate  issued
\nby   the  Central  Government  under  section  13   of\t the
\nCitizenship  Act.  We  find  no\t cogent\t ground\t to  take  a
\ndifferent view.\t By the above letter the Government of India
\nplainly\t reiterated and reaffirmed its view conveyed to\t the
\nrespondent  on\tDecember 15, 1964 that he  had\tprima  facie
\nbecome\ta  citizen  of India by virtue\tof  the\t Citizenship
\nOrder.\t It  was no doubt mentioned in the letter  that\t the
\nnecessity of a certificate under section 13 does not  arise,
\nbut  this was plainly in view of the assumption made by\t the
\nGovernment  of\tIndia as expressed in that letter  that\t the
\nrespondent  was already accepted to be a citizen of  India.,
\nThe  learned  Judicial Commissioner, in\t the  circumstances,
\ncannot\tbe held to be in error in construing letter  R3\t and
\nthe preceding correspondence as a certificate under  section
\n13 of the Citizenship Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To  put\t it  differently,  section  13\tvests  the   Central
\nGovernment  with power to certify in case a doubt exists  as
\nto whether a particular person is a citizen of India that he
\nis  such a citizen.  In the case of the respondent  a  doubt
\nwas  raised by the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu  on\t the
\npoint  as  to  whether\the was\ta  citizen  of\tIndia.\t The
\nGovernment  of, Goa, Daman and Diu in this context  referred
\nto the fact that the respondent while praying on January 15,
\n1964  for being declared Indian citizen had  suppressed\t the
\nfact about his having signed
\n438<\/span>
\ndeclaration  P3\t on  April  27,\t 1962  choosing\t to   retain
\nPortuguese  nationality.  The Central Government even  after
\nbeing  apprised\t of  that fact\trefused\t to  reconsider\t its
\ndecision  of  1964 and observed that the  matter  should  be
\ntreated as closed.  When the respondent thereafter asked for
\ncertificate  under  section 13 the Central  Government\tsaid
\nthat  no  such\tcertificate was necessary  in  view  of\t the
\nearlier\t official communication which had been sent  to\t him
\nthat he had prima facie become a citizen of India.
\nThese  facts,  in our opinion, clearly\testablish  that\t the
\nCentral\t Government  after being put in\t possession  of\t all
\nrelevant  facts reiterated its view that the respondent\t was
\nan Indian citizen and should be considered as such.   Letter
\ndated  July 26, 1970 and July 27, 1970, though they  do\t not
\nprofess\t to  be\t certificates issued under  section  13\t and
\nthough the later of these two letters recites that there was
\nno necessary of a certificate, clearly incorporate the\tview
\nof the Government of India that the respondent was an Indian
\ncitizen.    The\t letters  thus\tserve  the  purpose   of   a
\ncertificate  and  we  agree with Mr. Sen,  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondent, that they operated as certificate and should  be
\nconstrued as such.\n<\/p>\n
We  may\t observe  that\tthe Government\tof  India  issued  a
\npassport in favour of the respondent in 1965 and  thereafter
\nin  1970.   The respondent before his election\tto  the\t Lok
\nSabha  in 1971 was also a member of the Lok Sabha from\t1967
\ntill  1971.   When elected as a member of the Lok  Sabha  in
\n1967  as also when he obtained the Indian passport  in\t1965
\nand 1970 the respondent had to sign the declaration that  he
\nwas  an Indian citizen.\t He has already renounced  his\tPor-
\ntuguese\t citizenship.\tTo  hold  at  this  stage  that\t the
\nrespondent is not an Indian citizen would have the effect of
\nrendering him stateless.\n<\/p>\n
As a result of the above, we find that there is no merit  in
\nthe  appeal.   It accordingly fails and\t is  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t     Appeal dismissed.\n439<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 972, 1975 SCR (3) 425 Author: H R Khanna Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj PETITIONER: GANGADHAR YESHWANT BHANDARE Vs. RESPONDENT: ERASMO DE JESUS SEQUIRIA DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/02\/1975 BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BHAGWATI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197948","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-15T11:23:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T11:23:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975\"},\"wordCount\":5826,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975\",\"name\":\"Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T11:23:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-15T11:23:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975","datePublished":"1975-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T11:23:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975"},"wordCount":5826,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975","name":"Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T11:23:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadhar-yeshwant-bhandare-vs-erasmo-de-jesus-sequiria-on-4-february-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare vs Erasmo De Jesus Sequiria on 4 February, 1975"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197948","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=197948"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197948\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197948"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197948"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197948"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}