Election Commission Not Empowered to Decide Cessation of Indian Citizenship: Patna High Court

On September 12, 2024, the Patna High Court in Biltu Ray @ Bilat Ray @ Bilat Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar delivered a significant ruling addressing the issue of citizenship under the Indian Constitution and the Citizenship Act of 1955. The court set aside the disqualification of the appellant, who had been disqualified from holding the post of Mukhiya on the grounds of having allegedly acquired foreign citizenship, and ordered the matter to be referred to the Central Government. This decision clarified the legal process concerning the cessation of Indian citizenship and the jurisdictional authority to determine such matters.

Biltu Ray, the appellant, was serving as the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Bhaluaha in Sonebarsa Block of Sitamarhi District, Bihar. He was disqualified by the State Election Commission on the allegation that he had acquired citizenship of Nepal, thereby making him ineligible to hold public office in India. Ray contested that he was a naturalized citizen of India residing near the Nepal border, where cross-border familial and financial ties were common. He argued that his inclusion in the Nepalese electoral roll was not voluntary and did not amount to acquiring Nepalese citizenship. The learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the State Election Commission's decision, leading Ray to appeal.

The core legal issue was whether the appellant's name in the Nepalese electoral roll constituted voluntary acquisition of Nepalese citizenship, leading to the cessation of his Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Ray's counsel argued that the State Election Commission lacked the jurisdiction to decide on citizenship cessation and that such matters should be referred to the Central Government under Rule 40 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

Appellant’s Arguments: Ray's counsel, Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, contended that mere inclusion in the Nepalese electoral rolls did not equate to acquiring citizenship. He cited the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the Indian Constitution, arguing that termination of citizenship occurs only through voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship. They referred to Section 9 of the Citizenship Act and Article 9 of the Indian Constitution, highlighting that such matters should be referred to the Central Government as per the procedures laid out in the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

Respondent’s Arguments: The respondent’s counsel argued that the appellant’s name in the Nepalese voters' list indicated acceptance of foreign citizenship, thereby leading to automatic cessation of Indian citizenship under Section 9(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. They claimed that the Election Commission was within its rights to disqualify the appellant under Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, which disqualifies non-citizens from holding public office.

Jurisdictional Issue: The court emphasized the importance of following the correct legal procedures. It noted that Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, specifically mandates that any question about the acquisition of foreign citizenship should be determined by the Central Government, not the Election Commission. The court stated, "The Election Commission would not be empowered to decide the question even going by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Rajani Kumari."

Legal Precedents and Context: The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India and other cases, reiterating that only the Central Government has the authority to decide on matters of citizenship cessation. The court referred to State of U.P. v. Rehmatullah, highlighting that until the Central Government decides on the acquisition of foreign citizenship, the person cannot be treated as a foreigner or penalized for the same.

Election Commission's Role: The court clarified that the State Election Commission can only act based on unimpeachable material evidence and should refrain from adjudicating on contentious issues requiring a detailed inquiry, which falls outside its purview. It emphasized that disputed questions of fact about citizenship must be referred to a competent authority, which in this case is the Central Government.

Case Differentiation: The court distinguished the present case from Kiran Gupta v. State Election Commission, where the issue was about acquiring Indian citizenship rather than the cessation of it. The appellant in the current case was already a naturalized Indian citizen, and the question was whether he had voluntarily acquired Nepalese citizenship.

Order and Directions: The court set aside the Election Commission's disqualification order and the Single Judge's affirmation of that decision. It directed the State Election Commission to refer the question of the appellant's alleged voluntary acquisition of Nepalese citizenship to the Central Government. Until the Central Government's decision, the appellant would be allowed to continue serving as Mukhiya.

The Patna High Court's decision underscored the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government in determining the cessation of Indian citizenship due to the voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship. It highlighted the need for adherence to legal procedures and clarified that the State Election Commission cannot decide on such matters. This ruling sets an important precedent for future cases involving citizenship disputes.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2024

Biltu Ray @ Bilat Ray @ Bilat Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar