Citizenship Law – Termination of Indian Citizenship – Section 9(2), Citizenship Act, 1955 – Rule 3, Schedule III of Citizenship Rules – Conclusive Proof of Foreign Citizenship – Petitioners, originally Indian citizens, were deported or directed to leave India under the Foreigners Act on the ground that they had obtained Pakistani passports – They challenged Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act and Rule 3 of Schedule III as ultra vires Articles 5–11 of the Constitution – Held (per majority): Parliament’s power under Article 11 to regulate acquisition and termination of citizenship is plenary – Section 9(2) validly delegates to the Central Government authority to determine questions of foreign citizenship “having regard to rules of evidence” [Paras 11, 12, 14, 42].

Rule-Making Power – Rules of Evidence – Nature and Scope – Conclusive Presumptions – Rule 3 declaring that obtaining a passport from a foreign government is conclusive proof of voluntary acquisition of that country’s citizenship is a valid rule of evidence and not a rule of substantive law – A conclusive presumption based on a fact inherently relevant to another fact remains within the domain of the law of evidence – Passport is relevant proof of nationality, and its probative value can be made conclusive by rule without exceeding delegated authority [Paras 31–39].

Delegated Legislation – Validity of Delegation under Section 9(2) – Section 9(2) providing for decision by prescribed authority with reference to prescribed “rules of evidence” furnishes adequate guidance – Does not amount to excessive delegation – Rules made thereunder are within legislative competence [Para 42].

Citizenship – Dual or Plural Citizenship – Constitutional Scheme – Constitution does not recognise dual citizenship – Article 9 excludes persons voluntarily acquiring foreign citizenship from being Indian citizens; Section 9(1) extends this principle post-Constitution – Acquisition of a foreign passport under Pakistani law amounts to voluntary acquisition of Pakistani citizenship [Paras 13, 36].

Fundamental Rights – Article 19(1)(e) – Effect of Loss of Citizenship – Rights under Article 19(1)(e) available only to citizens – Once citizenship validly ceases under statute, person cannot claim enforcement of Article 19 rights – Challenge on this ground untenable [Para 41].

Dissent – Das Gupta, J. (minority) – Held that Rule 3 of Schedule III, prescribing conclusive proof of acquisition of foreign citizenship upon obtaining a foreign passport, is a rule of substantive law and ultra vires Section 9(2) – Such a rule extinguishes substantive rights of citizenship and cannot be classified as a mere rule of evidence – Directed Central Government to reconsider petitioners’ citizenship status excluding application of Rule 3 [Paras 54–68].

Decision: By majority (Gajendragadkar, Ayyangar, Wanchoo, Sarkar, JJ.) – Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act and Rule 3 of Schedule III valid – Petitions dismissed – No order as to costs.

(Das Gupta, J., dissenting – Rule 3 void; fresh enquiry directed).

Education Law – Examination Misconduct – Quasi-Judicial Function – Audi Alteram Partem – The Examination Committee of the U.P. Board cancelled the results of students and debarred them from future examinations on allegations of using unfair means, without affording any hearing – Held: Even in absence of express provision in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or its Regulations, the Committee, when determining cases of unfair means, acts quasi-judicially – Duty to act judicially inferred from the nature of powers, the objective determination of facts required, and the grave consequences of the decision – Principles of natural justice apply – Examinee must be given an opportunity of hearing before adverse action is taken [Paras 9–13].

Natural Justice – Administrative vs. Quasi-Judicial Functions – When statutory authority, though primarily administrative, is empowered to make decisions affecting rights of individuals on objectively determined facts, it must act quasi-judicially and observe natural justice – Mere administrative character of body does not exclude such duty [Paras 8–9].

Statutory Interpretation – Duty to Act Judicially – Even if statute does not expressly mandate a hearing, such duty can be implied from the scheme, purpose, and effect of decision – Absence of procedural prescription not conclusive against existence of quasi-judicial duty [Para 11].

Educational Authority – Power of Examination Committee – Regulation VI, Rule 1(1) – Power to consider cases of unfair means, fraud, or impersonation carries an implicit obligation to make an objective determination on evidence – Hence, hearing of examinee is essential to fair exercise of power [Paras 10–13].

Practical Considerations – Administrative Convenience No Defence – Volume of cases or administrative difficulty cannot justify denial of hearing when principles of natural justice apply – Tribunal may evolve suitable procedure to secure fairness without undue delay [Para 14].

Decision – High Court’s view that the Committee acted administratively incorrect, but its conclusion that denial of hearing vitiated the decision upheld – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 14–15].

Constitutional Law – Locus Standi – Petition under Article 226 – Maintainability – Appellant had a contractual right to manage the undertaking of the Oriental Gas Company under a valid agreement for a fixed term – Held: Section 4 of the impugned West Bengal Act terminated the appellant’s management rights for five years – Such deprivation of contractual rights amounts to infringement of legal right – Appellant has locus standi to challenge the statute under Article 226 [Paras 5-6].

Legislative Competence – State Legislature – Entry 24 and Entry 25 of List II – Scope – Industry of “gas and gas-works” falls exclusively under Entry 25 of List II – Entry 24 does not include gas industry – Harmonious construction of Entries 24 and 25 preferred to avoid redundancy – Held: State Legislature has exclusive competence to legislate on gas industry, including management and control thereof – Oriental Gas Company Act, 1960 validly enacted under Entry 25 of List II [Paras 15-16].

Legislative Competence – Repugnancy – Article 254 – Central and State Law Overlap – Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, passed under Entry 52 of List I – Gas industry not a declared industry under Entry 52 – Hence, State competence not ousted – Section 20 of the Central Act invalid insofar as it applies to gas industry – Held: No repugnancy arises under Article 254 as Central law not applicable to gas industry [Paras 17-19].

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious Construction – Entries in Seventh Schedule – Entries 24 and 25 of List II overlap – Construction must give effect to both without rendering either redundant – Held: Entry 25 carved out specifically for gas and gas-works – Cannot be subsumed under general Entry 24 – Separate legislative head for gas industry preserves intent of framers and constitutional balance [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned Act upheld as constitutionally valid – Appellant’s challenge rejected – Costs awarded to Respondents 1 to 4 [Para 20-21].

Tort Law – State Liability – Vicarious Liability – Government jeep driven negligently by temporary employee, resulting in death of a pedestrian – High Court held the State liable – Held: State liable for tortious acts of its servants committed during course of employment if not in exercise of sovereign functions – Use of vehicle by Collector’s office for official purposes did not amount to sovereign function – State not immune from liability [Paras 1–5].

Constitution of India – Article 300 – Extent of State’s Liability – Article 300(1) refers to liability of State as would apply to Dominion of India or corresponding Provinces or States pre-Constitution – Held: Provisions traceable to Section 65 of Government of India Act, 1858 – East India Company liable in tort for non-sovereign acts – Liability of State under Article 300 includes tortious liability unless excluded by law [Paras 6–10, 18–21].

Historical Interpretation – Evolution of Liability – East India Company’s liability as precedent – Judgment in P&O Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State (1861) applied – Distinction drawn between acts done in exercise of sovereign powers and commercial or administrative acts – Liability attaches where activity could be carried on by private individuals [Paras 11–17].

Public Law – Sovereign vs. Non-Sovereign Functions – State cannot claim immunity for ordinary administrative acts like transport or logistics – Modern welfare State involved in diverse functions beyond core sovereign activities – Claim of immunity outdated and rejected [Paras 15–21].

Comparative Law – Common Law Sovereign Immunity – Common law doctrine of “King can do no wrong” never applied in India – UK Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 cited as legislative shift – India’s republican framework under Constitution inconsistent with sovereign immunity for tortious acts [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's decree for Rs. 15,000/- against the State of Rajasthan upheld – Held: Government liable in tort for acts of its employees not done in discharge of sovereign powers – No legal justification for immunity post-Constitution – Costs awarded to respondents [Paras 22–23].

Criminal Law – Theft and Housebreaking – Recovery – Appellant convicted for housebreaking by night and theft under Sections 457 and 380 IPC – Witnesses saw appellant carrying boxes from direction of complainant’s shop – On police interrogation, appellant recovered stolen box from pond and a key from a bunch which opened the stolen lock – Conviction upheld – Recovery corroborated by eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence [Paras 2–3, 11]

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Discovery of Fact – Appellant in police custody produced key and box – Held: Only those parts of statement admissible which directly relate to discovery – Handing over key and production of box admissible – Statement that he used the key to open the lock is confessional and inadmissible – Section 27 does not nullify Section 26 but carves out an exception only for fact discovered [Paras 6–11]

Evidence Act – Sections 25 and 26 – Confession to Police – Mere production of stolen property by accused in custody not inadmissible per se – Confessional aspect (e.g., "I used this key to open the lock") inadmissible – Recovery remains admissible under Section 27 if directly linked to discovery of material facts [Paras 4–11]

Criminal Procedure – Section 342 CrPC – Non-examination on specific point – Appellant not questioned about handing over key – Held: No prejudice shown – No objection raised before lower courts – No failure of justice – Plea rejected [Para 13]

Penal Code – Section 71 – Multiple Punishments – Whether punishment under Sections 457 and 380 IPC barred – Held: Two distinct offences – Lurking house trespass and theft in dwelling house punishable separately – Section 71 not applicable – Consecutive sentences not illegal [Para 12]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC affirmed – Evidence of recovery admissible under Section 27 – No error in trial – Appellant to surrender to bail [Paras 14–15]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Confession and Recovery – Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Evidence Act – Scope and Admissibility – Accused, while in police custody, recovered stolen items (a box and a key) without making any direct confession of guilt – Held: Statement relating distinctly to the discovery of the article is admissible under Section 27 – Confessional portion (that the key was used to open the shop) is inadmissible – Recovery evidence limited to the fact discovered is valid and proved [Paras 5-11].

Criminal Law – Multiple Offences – Separate Punishment – Section 71 IPC – Housebreaking and Theft – Appellant convicted under Section 457 (housebreaking by night) and Section 380 (theft in dwelling) and sentenced separately – Held: Offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC are distinct and not part of the same transaction for the purposes of Section 71 IPC – Separate convictions and sentences upheld [Para 12].

Criminal Procedure – Examination of Accused – Section 342 CrPC – Failure to Question Regarding Recovery – Appellant contended he was not questioned under Section 342 CrPC about the recovery of key – Held: No prejudice shown – Point not raised at earlier stages – No vitiation of trial [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC affirmed – No error in admission of recovery evidence – No illegality in dual punishment – No prejudice from alleged omission under Section 342 CrPC [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance of Offences Against Public Justice – Section 195 CrPC – Appellant, a Patwari, made a false report to Tehsildar alleging assault and theft by two individuals – Report ultimately found false and prosecution launched under Section 182 IPC – Held: Under Section 195(1)(a), no court can take cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC except upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant – Filing of charge sheet by police without such complaint is a fundamental legal defect – Cognizance taken without jurisdiction [Paras 3–5].

Criminal Law – Section 182 IPC – Offence Complete on False Information – Appellant’s act of making a false report with expectation of action being taken sufficed to constitute the offence – However, such prosecution required statutory compliance with Section 195 CrPC – Absence of written complaint by Tehsildar renders entire proceedings null and void [Paras 4–5].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 195 CrPC – Mandatory Compliance – Mere forwarding of police report or informal communication by Tehsildar not equivalent to “complaint in writing” – Provision held to be mandatory – Procedural irregularity strikes at root of jurisdiction [Para 5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 182 IPC and sentence of three months’ imprisonment set aside – Trial held to be without jurisdiction due to absence of complaint as required under Section 195 CrPC – Proceedings quashed ab initio [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Procedure – Dismissal of Appeal for Default – Power to Rehear – Appellate Court cannot dismiss an appeal for default of appearance of the appellant or counsel – Court must either adjourn the case or decide it on merits after perusing the record – Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal after examining the judgment and record and therefore it was a decision on merits – Such order cannot later be reviewed or recalled by the same court [Paras 7–8].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 369 read with Section 424 CrPC – Once judgment is signed, appellate court becomes functus officio – It cannot alter, vary, or review its order except to correct clerical errors – Order recalling dismissal and directing rehearing of appeal is ultra vires and without jurisdiction [Paras 7, 11].

Hearing of Appeal – Section 423 CrPC – Words “if he appears” qualify the requirement of hearing appellant or his pleader – If neither appears, the appellate court can dispose of appeal on merits – Notice to appellant’s counsel under Section 422 sufficient; no need for personal notice to appellant [Paras 8–9].

Inherent Powers – Limitation – Inherent powers cannot be exercised to override express statutory prohibition – Sessions Judge had no inherent power to rehear appeal already disposed of by a signed judgment [Para 10].

Jurisdiction – Distinction Between Error and Lack of Jurisdiction – Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the application but not to set aside his previous final judgment – Order recalling earlier decision was wholly without jurisdiction [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Order of restoration passed by Sessions Judge ultra vires and void – High Court rightly upheld bar against review under Section 369 CrPC [Paras 12–13].

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech – Sedition – Sections 124A & 505 IPC – Validity upheld – Challenge to constitutionality of Sections 124A and 505 IPC on the ground that they violate Article 19(1)(a) – Held: The provisions, when read in light of Article 19(2), are valid – The restrictions imposed are “in the interests of public order” – Section 124A applies only to acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder or incitement to violence – Mere disapproval or criticism of government policy, however strongly worded, is not sedition [Paras 35–38].

Sedition – Meaning and Scope – Distinction between “Disaffection” and “Disapprobation” – Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity – Lawful criticism with a view to improvement by lawful means not punishable – Incitement to violence or tendency to cause public disorder constitutes the gist of the offence [Paras 36–37].

Public Order – Reasonable Restrictions – Interpretation of Article 19(2) – “In the interests of” broadens the scope of permissible legislative action – A law need not be directly aimed at maintaining public order if it is enacted in its interest – Section 124A falls within this ambit as it prevents incitement to violence and disorder [Paras 33–38].

Interpretation – Constitutional Consistency – Doctrine of Reading Down – Where a statute admits of two constructions, one constitutional and one not, the Court must prefer the former – Section 124A read down to apply only to speech having a tendency to disorder or incitement to violence – Ensures harmony between fundamental rights and public order [Paras 38–39].

Historical Evolution – Sedition in Indian Law – Traces development from British-era enactments and judicial interpretation – Federal Court’s decision in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King Emperor (1942 FCR 38) preferred over Privy Council’s view in Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao (74 I.A. 89) – “Public disorder” held to be the essence of sedition [Paras 25–28].

Application to Facts – Kedar Nath’s Speech – Accused’s speech contained incitement to overthrow the Government by violence and vilification of public officials – Clearly within mischief of Section 124A as interpreted – Conviction upheld [Paras 42–43].

Section 505 IPC – Validity – Each clause of Section 505 concerns statements likely to induce offences against the State or public tranquility – Such restrictions are reasonable under Article 19(2) [Para 41].

Decision: Section 124A IPC and Section 505 IPC upheld as constitutionally valid – Appeal of Kedar Nath Singh (Crl. A. No. 169/1957) dismissed – Connected appeals (Nos. 124–126 of 1958) remanded to the High Court for disposal in light of this interpretation [Paras 42–44].