ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR & Ors. v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In terms of the above, all these petitions/ appeals are allowed
Provisions considered
- Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003
- Foreigners Act, 1946
- Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation. Citizenship Act, 1955
- Citizenship Act, 1955
- Constitution of India arts. 5, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, 32, 58, 66, 124, 217
- Representation of the People Act, 1951 ss. 3, 4, 5, 5A, 6, 16
- Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
- Income Tax Act, 1961
- Public Health Act
- Public Health Act, 1848
- Public Health Act, 1875
Judgment
subsequent to 04.03.2021 i.e. the date of the notification and who seek for a registration as OCI cardholder from that date since at that juncture the parents would have a choice to either seek for citizenship by descent or to continue as a foreigner in the background of the subsisting policy of the Sovereign State. The respondent No.1 in furtherance of the policy of the Sovereign State has the power to pass appropriate notifications as contemplated under Section 7B(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, to confer or alter the rights as provided for therein. However, when a conferred right is withdrawn, modified or altered, the process leading thereto should demonstrate application of mind, nexus to the object of such withdrawal or modification and any such decision should be free of arbitrariness. In that background, the impugned notification dated 04.03.2021 though competent under Section 7B(1) of Act, 1955 suffers from the vice of non- application of mind and despite being prospective, is in fact ‘retroactive’ taking away the rights which were conferred also as a matter of policy of the Sovereign State. Hence, the notification being sustainable prospectively, it is hereby declared that the impugned portion of the notification which provides for supersession of the notifications dated 11.04.2005, 05.01.2007 and 05.01.2009 and the clause 4(ii), its proviso and Explanation (1) thereto shall operate prospectively in respect of OCI cardholders who have secured the same subsequent to 04.03.2021. [Paras 57-58][299-F-H; 300-A-B] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 : [1978] 2 SCR 621; Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) 10 SCC 1 : [2018] 7 SCR 379; LIC v. Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482 : [1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 349; Universal Imports Agency & Ans. Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Ors. [1961] 1 SCR 305; Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 477 : [1992] 1 Suppl. SCR 709; J. K. Industry Ltd. v. Union of India (2007) 13 SCC 673 : [2007] 12 SCR 136; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 117 : [1998] 1 SCR 1120; A B C D E F G H ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 251 Izhar Ahmed Khan & Ors. v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 1052 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 235; Indo-China Steam Navigation Co.Ltd. vs. Jasjit Singh & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1140 : [1964] SCR 594; State of A.P. v. Khudiram Chakma (1994) Supple 1 SCC 615 : [1993] 3 SCR 401; Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta & Ors. AIR 1955 SC 367 : [1955] SCR 1284; State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75 : [1952] SCR 284; Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar [1955] 1 SCR 1045;
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In terms of the above, all these petitions/ appeals are allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003; Foreigners Act, 1946; Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation. Citizenship Act, 1955; Citizenship Act, 1955; Constitution of India — arts. 5, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, 32, 58, 66, 124, 217; Representation of the People Act, 1951 — ss. 3, 4, 5, 5A, 6, 16.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.