Law and Case Commentaries

  Lok Prahari vs Election Commission Of India Disqualification of MPs and MLAs: The seat held by a Member of Parliament or of the State legislature becomes vacant upon a disqualification being incurred under Article 102 or Article 191, respectively... once the disqualification is incurred under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 read with Article 102(1)(e) or Article 191(1)(e), the seat becomes vacant effective from the date of conviction. .... Article 102 of the Constitution provides thus: “102. (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament— (a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder; (b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; (c) if he is an undischarged insolvent; (d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily...

  Dheeraj Mor vs Honble High Court Of Delhi Appointment of a District Judge: Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to Explanation I to cl. (3) of Art. 124 of the Constitution relating to the qualifications for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court and to the explanation to cl. (2) of Art. 217 relating to the qualifications for appointment as a Judge of a High Court, and has submitted that where the Constitution makers thought it necessary they specifically provided for counting the period in a High Court which was formerly in India. Articles 124 and 217 are differently worded and refer to an additional qualification of citizenship which is not a requirement of Art. 233, and we do not think that cl. (2) of Art. 233 can be interpreted in the light of explanations added to Arts. 124 and 217. Article 233 is a self contained provision regarding the appointment of District Judges. As to a person who is already in the service of the Union or of the State...

Assam Public Works vs Union Of India National Register of Citizens (NRC) It also appears that while deciding eligibility of descendants, provisions of Section 3(1)(b) & (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 may be important to be taken into account, though citizenship purely by birth and not by descendance (Section 3(1)(a) is not eligible for inclusion in NRC. It is humbly felt that the substance of Section 3(1)(b) & (c) is that while determining citizenship of any descendant born up to 3 December, 2004, citizenship eligibility of any one of the parents suffices, while for those descendants born on or after 3 December 2004, citizenship eligibility of both the parents needs to be taken into account. From a conjoint reading of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 2 July 2018 and the provisions contained in Section 3(1)(b) & (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the following appears to be the best course of action: a. For any NRC Applications/Claimants, if parent/legacy person t...

  Vikash Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016: A paradigm-shift G.1 A statutory manifestation of a constitutional commitment 32 Part III of our Constitution does not explicitly include persons with disabilities within its protective fold. However, much like their able-bodied counterparts, the golden triangle of Articles 14, 19 and 21 applies with full force and vigour to the disabled. The RPwD Act 2016 seeks to operationalize and give concrete shape to the promise of full and equal citizenship held out by the Constitution to the disabled and to execute its ethos of inclusion and acceptance. 33 The fundamental postulate upon which the RPwD Act 2016 is based is the principle of equality and non-discrimination. Section 3 casts an affirmative obligation on the government to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy (i) the right to equality; (ii) a life with dignity; and (iii) res...

  V. Prakash @ G.N.V. Prakash vs M/S P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu And others The ‘Green Card’ was a mere privilege and did not terminate the Indian citizenship automatically. It is one of the way to attain US citizenship. It alone does not confer citizen of US states. If the card holder violates, he will lose the green card holder status. One can voluntarily give up the card. Hence, merely because, the plaintiff is a green card holder, his Indian citizenship will not be declined automatically. ==================== Amit Sahni vs Commissioner Of Police The Legislature, in its wisdom, enacted the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which has its share of supporters and opponents. The Legislature performed its task. A section of the society, aggrieved by this legislative amendment, has filed petitions before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, assailing the constitutionality and legality of this amendment. ============== Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia vs Dhiraj Prasa...

  Supreme Court in “Anushka Rengunthwar vs Union Of India” Overseas Citizens of India (OCIs) The Overseas Citizens of India (OCIs) have been equated with Non Resident Indians (NRIs) all along since 2005 as regards various rights conferred under Section 7B(1) of the Citizenship Act and more particularly rights regarding education. That vide notification dated 05.01.2009, OCIs were permitted to carry out various professions in India as enumerated therein. That in view of the various rights having been given and more particularly education rights and right to work in India and also because many OCIs have their grandparents/families/roots in India, they came back to India long back and have been residing and working here and contributing to the nation like any other citizen in the form of taxes etc. The span of living here ranges as long as about 16 to 17 years. Article 14 prohibits class legislation, but permits reasonable classification. However, for reasonable classification...

  Supreme Court in “Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr.” Sikkim Subjects: In order to check the influx of foreigners into Sikkim, the Ruler of Sikkim (the Chogyal) promulgated the Sikkim Subject Regulations, 1961 on 03.07.1961. Under the said Regulations: (a) the persons falling under Clause 3 of the Regulations were to be entered as a “Sikkim Subject” in the Register; and (b) Persons who were citizens of another country were not to be registered as a “Sikkim Subject” unless he relinquishes the citizenship of the other country. The term 'Sikkim Subject' was defined as a person who was born in the territory of Sikkim and was resident therein and similarly situated persons, but however with a caveat that "a person shall not be a “Sikkim Subject” under this section, unless he makes a declaration that he is not a citizen of any other country at the time of inclusion of his name in the register of “Sikkim Subjects". Because of thi...