J&K High Court Upholds Deportation Order
The Excessive Court docket of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, whereas dismissing a 34-year-old writ petition difficult deportation orders, held that “The petitioners have acted in their very own volition and purchased the citizenship of a overseas Nation. Their passports and the residential allow issued of their favour are cogent, unequivocal proof of the truth that the petitioners are usually not residents of India and, as such, orders to deport them have been legitimate.”
Justice Sindhu Sharma dominated that there was no authorized infirmity within the deportation orders issued in opposition to the petitioners, who had been staying in Srinagar for over three many years based mostly on a judicial keep in opposition to removing.
Whereas dismissing their petition, the court docket remarked,
“.. the petitioners are staying in India, Srinagar on the power of the truth that the orders of deportation was stayed by this Court docket vide order dated 25.04.1990. The petitioners having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of one other nation when it comes to Part 9 of the Citizenship Act 1955 and being conscious of their standing had entered the State of Jammu and Kashmir”
Background of the Case:
The petitioners, presently residing in Srinagar, had approached the Excessive Court docket in 1990 by writ petition and sought to declare the deportation orders issued by the Residence Division as unlawful and unconstitutional, and additional sought a mandamus restraining authorities from eradicating them from Indian territory.
Petitioner No. 1 was born in Srinagar in 1945 however turned stranded in Pakistan through the 1948 battle, ultimately buying Pakistani citizenship. Petitioner No. 2, additionally born in Srinagar in 1962, held an Indian passport till she married Petitioner No. 1 in Rawalpindi in 1986. Put up-marriage, she too acquired Pakistani nationality. The couple, together with their minor son, entered India in 1988 on legitimate Pakistani passports and have been issued residential permits in Srinagar.
Although the Residence Division initially granted three consecutive 30-day visa extensions, all legitimate till November 1, 1988, subsequent requests for additional extension and resumption of Indian citizenship have been denied. A deportation order dated September 13, 1989, was issued in opposition to them.
Represented by Advocate Mohammad Altaf Khan, the petitioners contended they have been involuntary Pakistani residents as a result of historic circumstances and their delivery and familial roots in Srinagar entitled them to Indian citizenship and safety from deportation. The deportation violated Article 14 of the Structure and was arbitrary, unjust, and in opposition to pure justice, they argued.
Senior AAG Mr. Mohsin Qadiri and DSGI Mr. T.M. Shamsi asserted that the petitioners had voluntarily acquired Pakistani citizenship and admitted the identical. It was submitted that as per Part 9(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, voluntary acquisition of overseas citizenship ends in automated cessation of Indian citizenship and their continued keep in India post-expiry of residential permits amounted to unlawful presence.
Observations of the Court docket:
Justice Sharma undertook an intensive evaluation of constitutional provisions (Articles 5–11) and Part 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. She referred to binding precedents together with Izhar Ahmad Khan vs. Union of India (1962) and Union of India vs. Pranav Srinivasan (2024), reinforcing the precept that voluntary acquisition of overseas citizenship strips considered one of Indian citizenship by operation of legislation.
The Court docket categorically held,
“Petitioner No. 1 is admittedly a citizen of Pakistan and selected to stay so. Petitioner No. 2 acquired Pakistani citizenship voluntarily after marriage. Each entered India on Pakistani passports with restricted visas and residential permits that expired many years in the past.”
The Court docket rejected the argument of “involuntary” acquisition, stating that,
“There may be nothing on report to recommend that their request for Indian citizenship has been accepted. They proceed to reside in Srinagar with out authorized entitlement.”
It additionally famous that the petitioners had by no means positioned any correct software or proof of citizenship declare beneath Indian legislation. The unsigned communications to the Chief Minister and Ministry of Residence Affairs have been inadequate to ascertain any authorized proper.
“.. The petitioners submit that they’ve sought citizenship of India, in assist of their declare, have relied upon a number of 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, searching for the grant of Indian citizenship… Nevertheless, upon perusal of the latter communication, it’s noticed that it bears no signature from any competent authority”, the court docket remarked.
Dismissing the petition, the Court docket concluded,
“Voluntary acquisition of citizenship of one other nation by an Indian citizen ends in the termination of Indian citizenship. The petitioners are usually not residents of India and therefore, the deportation orders are legally legitimate.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioners: Mr. Mohammad Altaf Khan, Advocate with Mr. Hashir Shafiq, Advocate
For Respondents: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Helping Counsel Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI with Ms. Sahila Nissar, Helping Counsel.
Case Title: Mohd Khalil Qazi Vs State of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)
