Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an election petition filed by the appellant, Shanno Devi, challenging the election of the respondent, Mangal Sain, on the grounds that he was not a citizen of India. The respondent was born in 1927 in India, but his family moved to Burma during his childhood. After the partition, he returned to India with the intention of settling permanently. The Election Tribunal initially ruled that he was not a citizen, but the High Court reversed this decision, concluding that he had migrated to India with the intention of permanent residence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling, clarifying the interpretation of 'migration' under Article 6 of the Constitution, emphasizing that it encompasses the intention to reside permanently. The court found that the respondent had been ordinarily resident in India since his migration and dismissed the appeal, affirming the respondent's citizenship claim. The court noted that the intention to reside permanently is implicit in the concept of migration as understood in the constitutional context.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Citizenship - Meaning of 'Migrated to the Territory of India' - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 6 - The expression 'migrated to the territory of India' means 'migrated at any time before the commencement of the Constitution to a place now in the territory of India' and requires intention to reside permanently. The court held that the respondent satisfied the requirements of Article 6 and was deemed a citizen of India. (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was a citizen of India at the commencement of the Constitution under Article 6.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the respondent was a citizen of India under Article 6 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Citizenship
- migration
- ordinary residence
- election petition
- constitutional interpretation
