“Wars are not won in a day”

This Article is written by Shantam Patil pursuing BA.LL.B from HNLU, Raipur. In this article, he has discussed the legality of lockdown amid Coronavirus with the reference of Draconian Law, an Athenian law scribe under which small offences had heavy punishments.

Introduction

On 11th March 2020, a 123-year-old law (so-called draconian law) was implemented and came into force by the authority of the President and Government of India.

Karnataka was the 1st Indian State to implement this law. Then after many States like Maharashtra, Delhi and others also joined the league and were followed by many others. A series of drastic and rapid events then took place in our country. People ran to the shopping malls and grocery markets, causing a tremendous situation. A heavy police force was then deployed to control the situation. Resulting in many arrests and quarrels between the public and the authorities.

Finally, Prime Minister Narendra Modi came out and announced the total lockdown in India for 21 days on 24th March 2020 at 8 pm and it started functioning from the next day onwards i.e. 25th March 2020. All Economical and other beneficial activities stopped and there was no exchange. India shut its $2.9 trillion (£2.3tn) economy, closing its businesses and issuing strict stay-at-home orders to more than a billion people. Air, road, and rail transport systems were suspended.
Then the second lockdown was announced on until May 3rd and lastly the on 01st May the GOI extends nationwide lockdown further by two weeks until 17 May.

History

Historically it weighs very much important because it is the first-ever all-over nationwide lockdown after Independence of India. Many situations like this occurred in India and also people of India fought with that and survived. The first-ever known situation like this happened during the British regime over India in the year 1897. There was bubonic plague spread all over the city of Bombay (now Mumbai) and the British came up with the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

It is a Pre-independence era, A 123-year-old law that was enacted on the 4th of February 1897. It was evolved by the British Council to tackle dangerous epidemic diseases and was used to prevent the spread of the outbreak of the bubonic plague in India, particularly in Bombay in 1897. This act gave draconian powers to the colonial government which allows British authorities to detain any person and at any time, also it allows for medical examination of the detainee.

While introducing the Epidemic Diseases Bill in the Council of the Governor-General of India in Calcutta for ‘better prevention of the spread of dangerous epidemic diseases’ John Woodburn, the council member who introduced it, himself considered the powers mentioned in it as ‘extraordinary’ but ‘necessary’. Woodburn emphasized that people must ‘trust the discretion of the executive in the grave and critical circumstances.’

This law proved to be very stringent for Indian freedom fighters and resulted in the arrest of many freedom fighters, one of them was Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak. He opposed this act and he used the term “Military Terrorism” in his newspaper Kesari for this pre-independence draconian law.
The Act has, since then, been invoked to fight dengue and malaria in cities like Chandigarh in 2015, cholera in Vadodara in 2018.

Current Scenario

Indeed, there is no doubt that this lockdown is completely legal and the Constitution of India provides for this. The Disaster Management Act provides for a National Disaster Management Act,2005. This is also the first time a nation was shut under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act,2005. This is also the first time a central government has issued directions of this magnitude to the states. The Disaster Management Act provides for a National Disaster Management Authority and section 6 of the legislation deals with powers of the authority from which the authority has issued the directions to the state and central governments.

Section 6(2)(i) of the Act authorizes the National Disaster Management Authority, headed by the prime minister, to take measures for “the prevention of disaster, or the mitigation, or preparedness and capacity building for dealing with the threatening disaster situation or disaster as it may consider necessary”. The Act also provisions for a national executive authority, which exercises powers to issue guidelines that will be in effect during the lockdown. The Disaster Management Act also casts a duty on the states to follow the directions of the NDMA as mandated under Section 38 of the Disaster Management Act.

There are other acts also which the government can exercise in situations like – war, state emergency, and financial emergency. And these are: –
Article 352 of the Indian Constitution which provides that the President of India can declare emergency in situations like war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution provides that the President of India can declare state emergency when he is satisfied that the state cannot further be carried out according to the procedure established by the law.
Article 360 of the Indian Constitution provides for the declaration of financial emergency by the President of India when he felts that there is financial instability.

Cause and Effects

For a country whose population is 1.35 billion and also stands 2nd in terms of population.

Certainly, the nation-wide lockdown has proven to be more useful for our country and has helped to tackle the Novel Coronavirus. The reason why we are doing a far better play in the case of positive coronavirus patients than other powerful nations is because of the lockdown imposed all over India by the Government of India.

Also, it has attacked the economy of India very badly and some sources confirmed that it may be possible that a situation like in 1929 happened to cause a major outbreak to the economy that can happen due to this crisis.
Many of the contracts made between two parties to a contract that requires physical attention and supervision shall become void because of the nationwide lockdown and curfew-like situation. This has been provided in Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the doctrine of frustration. It says that “An agreement to do an act impossible in itself is void. And the same has happened. People cannot leave their house and so they are unable to carry out the performance of the contract they may have made.

All the upcoming examinations which were going to be held are cancelled and the board results of Students are delayed due to coronavirus. This would cause a severe drawback in the academic performance of fellow students of the country. Many universities and schools have started online classes for their students. And the government is launching many e-platforms for education. But only the students living in the urban area would be getting benefits from this and people living in the rural area could not because of the poor internet connectivity issues.

Many NGOs, Communities, and Social institutions are coming forward to help and giving large amounts of donations to the people in need. The Government has also exempted common people from various taxes which they pay in a normal situation.

Conclusion

The Government of India is doing its best to stop the spread of Coronavirus in India by taking harsh measures like lockdown, the imposition of the Disaster management act, and Epidemic diseases act. Also, the Central government is cooperating with all the state governments to provide relief and provide assistance to the needy people. India has entered into the third phase of lockdown. This is the situation in which a country requires contribution from every citizen. This is the time that people have to unite and fight against this deadly virus. Now, the time has come that every individual unites together and contribute to fighting against coronavirus.

References

Latest posts

This article has been written by Yash Dodani, a first-year student at NALSAR University of Law. He has tried to explain the similarities and differences between Law, Justice and Morality.

The three terms, viz, law, justice and morality are used interchangeably in terms of a common man. However, in legal terms, these terms are used differently. Although they have a similarity but they have differences too. We will try to understand the similarity and the differences. But let us first try to understand the meaning of all these terms separately to get more clarity in the parts where I will try to locate the similarity and the differences.

Law

What is Law?

Now when everyone will try to find the definition of the term Law, we will face a lot of problem to find a concrete definition. Law is that vast area where the definition is next to impossible to be accepted by the universe as a single definition. Law can be anything from the written statutes to the unwritten rules that govern the behaviour of the society from the ancient times. However, the Jurists have tried to find a working definition of the Law by taking something as a base. And that thing can be ‘nature’, ‘source’, ‘effects’ etc.

The society plays a major role in shaping of the law. Laws can’t be made against the will of the society. If any law is made against the society, the society will resist the law and will try to disobey it. The laws are made by the society, and the law govern the society in the sense that the law tells the society what they should do and should not do as a part of society. The society also acts as a part of the law, mostly in the unwritten manner. There are various things which we should do according to the rules of society, and if we don’t do so, the society will look down to us. For example – respecting the elders is an unwritten rule, which is not told by any law but told to us by the society.

Law is a social science which runs by the society. The law of any state cannot be rigid. It is because of the social changes by the time. There can be one offence at a particular time or place, but after some time, may it be a no offence? If the law is so rigid that it can’t accommodate itself with the changing society, that law is bad. If the law is so changing, there can’t be any concrete definition of the law. Hence the law can’t be defined by a single definition. To define law the analysis of various legal concepts against various disciplines like sociology, political science, history, psychology, economics is needed to be done with the element of logic and practicality, to meet the ends of justice.

Justice

The justice is a very age-old concept in the society. It can be done through law or without the law. When I say without the law, it means that justice can be administered without a law. The justice can be administered under the general principles of giving justice which are independent of the law. Every person is expected to live peacefully. Without the justice an orderly society is unthinkable. These lines were said by Salmond. Justice come up with rights, duties and equity which then after takes the shape of laws.

The justice ensures that there is a uniformity in the interpretation of the law [if any] and in absence, do justice to the innocent party in whatever way feels suitable. it expects everyone to be Impartial and just to others as well.

Justice in the Modern society

The modern law concept of justice is called as ‘Justice according to Law’. It implies that justice can be given without law as well. As various prominent authors have called it as ‘Rule of Law’. It also means that no one is above law. Law is the supreme rule in the modern society.

Civil Justice

The civil justice system involves the protection of rights in the first place and not the punishment. Just to give some sort of compensation, the court orders to give some amount of damages to the innocent parties. This ensures that they will refrain from committing the same wrong again.

Criminal Justice

The main aim of the criminal justice is to punish the offender. The crime is so harsh that if the offender is just asked to compensate the innocent party, it will not ensure that people will not commit the crime again and again.

There are various types of theories of punishment which were/are used by the courts in administrating justice and to reduce the crime.
1.Deterrent Theory
2.Preventive Theory
3.Reformative theory
4.Retributive theory
These are the punishments which are used to punish the offender
(For details on theories, visit my article on Theories of Punishment)

Morality

In the ancient time, there was no distinction between Law Justice and morality. In Hindu law, there were Smritis and Vedas. The Greeks in the name of ‘natural rights’ formulated a theoretical moral foundation of law. The Romans recognized moral laws based on ‘natural law’. In middle age, churches came in power and Christian morals were considered as the basis of law.
The morals are nothing but established rules when the human life was made. It means that morals are the basic human rights. It also means that those abstract rights which are in the public interest.

The law derives its authorities from the supreme state and not the established morals. When the church was removed from the power, it was said that law and morals are different. Austin said in the 19th century that the law and morality are two different terms and the law has nothing to do with morality. But he being too positivist, forgot that there is a relation in the law and morals. But at the same time, they are not the same.

The Distinction between Law and Morals

Morals are not laws, but are an end in themselves. It is followed by the people because it helps in improving the character of an individual. After all, they are good to follow. There are acts which are morally correct but are wrong as per the law and vice versa. Morals are universal and are not affected by the state. Morals are more related to the individuals and not the group per se. Roscoe Pound said “ As to the application of moral principles and legal principles respectively, it is said that moral principles are of individual and relative application; they must be applied regarding circumstances and individuals, whereas legal rules are of general and absolute application”

S.No.	Law	Morals
1	Tries to make society an Ideal one, but is dynamic	Is an end in itself.
2	Related to the society and to make it ideal.	Related to regulate individuals.
3	The conduct is looked and punished.	They look into the motive to do act, that motive could be correct morally.
4	They are followed because the law is backed by sanctions.	They are followed just because it’s good for the individuals to follow.
5	State is responsible to enforce it.	Individuals are left upon to decide if they want to follow or not.

Relation between Law and Morals

There are indeed a lot of differences between the law and the morals, but it does not mean that there is no sort of similarity. They are very closely related to each other. The type of law will determine how important the morals are to that particular law.

Morals are used to make the laws.
Morals are used to test the positive laws.
Morals as the end of the law.

Starting point of law

The law and morals have the same origin but have different developments throughout the time. There were common things between law and morality. The sanctions which were charged due to breaking of the law or the morals were the same. But after some time, the state thought that some things should have more sanctions and confided things, and this came out to be ‘law’.

The ruled which were for the ‘good’ of humanity but the state could not ensure its observance were left as they were. These are called ‘moral’. Thus, it could be said that law and morals have a common origin, but diverge in their development. Many rules are common to both of them such as NOT killing a person, NOT stealing.

Queen v/s Dudley and Stephen’s Case: 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)

This is a very leading case in the English Law. This case features the need/necessity to commit an act to save the life of shipments. The facts are very interesting and the reasoning of the court is equally good. The defendants, in this case, were travelling in a ship to reach a particular purpose. However, in the middle of the journey, there was a thunder broke out and they were stuck in the sea. They stuck in so long that they ate their whole food and there was nothing left for them after some time. It was so worse that they were trying to however live somehow. But after some time, there was nothing at all left. With them, there was a boy of about 17 years old. That boy was sick and the other members of the ship thought that he is young and sick and might die anytime. And then they killed him and ate his flash. When they reached the destination, the police arrested him and charged for murder. The defendants took the defence of necessity.

The court held that the person can’t take the life of another to save his own life and was considered as morals. But the court decreased the punishment from death to life imprisonment.

Mr X v/s Hospital Z (1998) 8 SCC 296

Another interesting case on the front of morals, where the court again brought the similarity between the morals and the law. The facts were that a person had HIV+ he was about to marry a girl. But the hospital authorities gave the information of him being HIV+ to the girl whom he was about to marry. The boy filed a case against the hospital authorities and claimed that they should not have revealed the information without the consent of the boy. The hospital authorities claimed that they have done this on the moral grounds and hence they should not be held liable.

The court here held that the hospital authorities were not liable because the right of Ms A to be informed about the safety of her life will override the right of Mr X’s to privacy. The court said that in the public interest, there cannot be upheld of individual rights as it will be against the morals and not always law should be considered. The following lines were said.

“As a human being, Ms. ‘Y’ must also enjoy, as she is entitled to, all the Human Rights available to any other human being. This is apart from, and, in addition to, the Fundamental Rights available to her under Article 21, which, as we have seen, guarantees “Right to Life” to every citizen of this country. This right would positively include the right to be told that a person, with whom she was proposed to be married, was the victim of a deadly disease, which was sexually communicable. Since “Right to Life” includes right to lead a healthy life to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime condition, the respondents, by their disclosure that the appellant was HIV (+), cannot be said to have, in any way, either violated the rule of confidentiality or the right of privacy. Moreover, where there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, as in the instant case, namely, the appellant’s right to privacy as part of right to life and Ms. ‘Y’s right to lead a healthy life which is her Fundamental Right under Article 21, the RIGHT which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of Court, for the reason that moral considerations cannot be kept at bay and the judges are not expected to sit as mute structures of clay, in the Hall, known as Court Room, but have to be sensitive, “in the sense that they must keep their fingers firmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the day”

Morals as a test of positive law

Morals can be used to check if the law is being more positive or not. If the law will not consider morals, it is very positive. But it is not that the positive laws will not be binding, laws are made to be binding on the people. In those laws where strict liability will be read, we can’t say that it will consider morals in determining the cases. Morals are used to test the extent to which laws are positive.

Conclusion

Hence the law justice and morals have a difference but at the same time are related to each other. Morals have often been considered the end of the law. Many jurists have defined law based on ‘Justice’. Thus, there is a relationship between law justice and morality. Most jurists say that the end of the law is to secure ‘justice. Justice has more or less been defined in the terms of ‘morals’. Thus, the law is used to give an idea of both morals and justice.

In modern terms, there is a lot of difference between the law and the morals, justice being the base of law.

Latest Posts

This post is written by Anushree Tadge, 3^rd year law student of ILS Law College, Pune, she tries to explain briefly what the concept of free consent is and why it is regarded as foundation stone of other Acts like Transfer of Property Act, Company Act, Family Laws etc.

Introduction to ‘Free Consent’

‘Consent’ as a word is heard very often by individuals around the globe, as the feeling of ‘individuality’ is given importance more and more, consent as a provision is also evolving. Derived from the Merriam Webster dictionary, ‘Consent’ is explained as ‘compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another.’
In simple words a voluntary agreement of one party to the proposal of others in order to reach or not reach the desired motive. Now even consents are of different types, these include implied, expressed, informed consent and unanimous consent. But, again for a person to provide consent, he/she should not be diagnosed with a mental disorder, age more than 18 years etc along with the major factor being the consent should be voluntary and not affected by any form of coercion. Fraud, undue influence.

‘Free Consent in the Indian Contract Act, 1872’

Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as Act) defines the term ‘Consent’ as Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.
For example, suppose there are two parties in a contract, A and B. It was seen that there was some land and “A” put a proposal to sell. “B” after being made aware of this proposal, analysed that it was the perfect opportunity, agreed to it. In this case, both parties showed their consent.
The principle of consensus-ad-idem is to be followed in contractual agreements.

Section 14 of the Act states that Consent is said to be free if the following factors are satisfied:
If the consent is free from coercion.
If the contract is not done under any undue influence.
If a contract is performed without any fraud.
The contract should not complete with any misrepresentation.
The contract should not be agreed to by mistake.
If there is no consensus, moreover free consensus between parties is very vital for the contact to be binding and legitimate. In case there is no free consent, the voidability of the contract depends if the aggrieved party wishes to challenge the legality of the contract leading them to be ‘voidable’ in nature.

Coercion

According to Section 15, it is the committing or threatening to perform, any act that is forbidden by the Indian Penal Code, 1860; or (ii) the unlawful detainment or threatening to do the same of any property, to the prejudice of any particular person, with the intention of leading any individual to enter into an agreement.
In the famous case of Ranganayakamma Vs. Alwar Setti (1889), A Hindu Widow of 13 years, was coerced into adopting a boy under the threat of not allowing cremation of her husband’s death. Following which, the widow feared and adopted the boy. Later she even applied for cancellation of the adoption. It was held that the adoption was voidable at her option as her consent was not free it was rather obtained by coercion is an offence under Sec 297 of the Indian Penal Code.
Now for cases where coercion is obtained by threats like ‘filing a suit’, it will also fall under the same category, because it is explicitly stated as an offence by the Indian Penal Code. In another interesting case of Ammiraju v. Seshamma, the issue was put forth whether ‘threat to commit suicide’ was a punishable offence? The Court ruled otherwise and put forth that such kind of coercion was not punishable by the IPC,1860.

Undue Influence

The second factor which makes ‘consent’ of particular cases to be compromised is Undue Influence. Section 16 (i) of the Act, defines undue influence as to where if the relationship existing between the parties are of such nature that one of the parties is in a superior position or can dominate the will of the other easily and actually uses that position to obtain an unfair benefit over the other person or force him/her to act particularly in a contract is ‘Undue Influence’.
Section 16 (2) of the Act states that a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another where:
He holds a real or some apparent authority over the other person. For e.g. Master and Servant
There exists a fiduciary relationship based on trust and confidence for e.g. guardian and ward
Contract with a person experiencing mental distress/ disorder/ weak intelligence/ illiterates etc.
The burden of proof lies on the party at whose end the contract seems voidable, there has to be compulsory proving of the fact that there existed a relationship where one party could dominate another and the party actually used such position to obtain an unfair advantage.

Fraud

The third way by which consent is unfree can be explained is Fraud. The term ‘fraud’ is defined in Section 17 of the Act as follows:
“Fraud includes any of the acts committed by one of the parties in a contract or by anyone of his agents, with an intention to deceive the other party so as to lead him to enter into the contract:

i) the suggestion of a fact, that is not true,

ii) the active concealment i.e. hiding of a fact.

iii) making a promise without any actual intention of performing it;

iv) any other act in order to deceive; any act or omitting the law which especially shows it to be fraudulent.”

A very interesting point to note is that the Section 17 says “Mere silence as far as facts are concerned are likely to affect the willingness of an individual to enter into a contract is not really fraud”. Although this rule has an exception to circumstances where there is a duty to speak and if the ‘contract is made in good faith.’

Misrepresentation

A representation, when performed in a wrong manner, innocently or intentionally, is called ‘misrepresentation’.
Misrepresentation should be made innocently, absolutely believing it to be true and without any intention of deceiving the other party.
Misrepresentation should be pertinent to the facts of the case. A mere expression of one’s opinion is not stating of a fact. It should also be used in inducing the other party into entering the contract. Like all the other forms explained in this post, even misrepresentation is voidable at the part of the aggrieved party, he can challenge the contract to be null and void or ask for an honest performance of the same.
However, under few circumstances the aggrieved party loses the right to rescind the contract, these are-
If the truth could be discovered with ordinary diligence.
If the consent is not actually induced due to misrepresentation.
If the parties cannot be led back in such a way that they acquire their original positions.
Even, after coming to know about misrepresentation if the party acts in such a manner that it shows it’s an affirmation to the contract, the party, in such case will automatically lose the right to rescind.

Mistake

Mistake is an incorrect assumption turning into a belief concerning anything.
Mistakes are of two kinds- Mistake of Law and Mistake of Fact.
Mistake of law can be of two types further

(ii) mistake related to foreign laws

(i) mistake related to the law of the land

A mistake of fact can also be divided into two –

(a) bilateral mistake.

(b) unilateral mistake.

Bilateral mistake may relate to topics like the subject-matter where both parties are combinedly at fault. Mistake of fact regarding subject-matter may be the existence of, the identity of, the title of, quantity of, quality of the subject-matter, or even its price. Such a mistake makes the Contract void.
A unilateral mistake is when only one party is at fault by virtue of the assumption that there is the same sense of subject matters in both parties. For e.g. A wants to sell a horse but B thinks it’s a pony.

Latest Posts

Archives

This article has been written by Nidhi Chillar, Marketing Head and Co-editor at Lexpeeps.in

INTRODUCTION

Several categories of the Citizens have been defined under Part – II of the Constitution of India. A citizen of the state is a person who enjoys full membership of the state. The Citizens of the country are different from aliens and mere residents. Citizens have all the rights provided by the state which may not be available to aliens and residents. For example, in India, the aliens don’t enjoy all the Fundamental Rights, the right to vote is available to the citizens alone. Citizenship inheres only in natural persons and not in juristic persons, like corporations.

What is Citizenship

Citizenship refers to the state of being recognized as a citizen of the state. Citizenship ensures that the person is a member of the state. It further provides the social and political rights to the citizens. A citizen has the right to take part in the governance and administration of the state.

Difference between Citizenship, Nationality, Overseas Citizenship and Resident

Nationality

Nationality refers to the status of belonging to a particular nation. Thus, the person enjoys the nationality of the place where he is born. For example, a person born in India, automatically acquires Indian Nationality, however, in order to obtain the citizenship of a country, a person is required to apply for it, whereas, the nationality is automatically vested on a person, he need not apply for it. A national of one country may apply for the citizenship of a different country. Thus, one can change his Citizenship but can not alter his/her nationality.

Overseas Citizenship

Overseas Citizenship is granted to the people who are not ordinarily the citizens of the country. Thus, the person of India who migrated to other countries except for Pakistan and Bangladesh and has obtained foreign citizenship is awarded overseas citizenship. This should not be confused with dual citizenship. Overseas citizenship is provided only if the home country allows dual citizenship in some form or the other. However, the Overseas Citizens cannot enjoy all the rights which are provided to the citizen of the country for example

1. Overseas don’t have the right to vote.

2. He is not eligible to obtain an Indian passport.

3. One can not contest the elections of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council.

4. A person can not hold constitutional posts like President, Vice-President or the Judge of a Court.

5. He is not eligible to apply for government jobs.

6. He can not acquire the agricultural or plantation property but can inherit the same.

Resident

A resident is a person who resides in a country. A resident is not always the Citizen of the country. A foreign national residing in India can be termed as a Resident of India but not necessarily the Citizen of India unless he acquires Citizenship.

What are the different modes of acquiring Citizenship

Article 5, 6 and 8 of the Indian Constitution specifies certain methods by which a person can acquire the citizenship of India. These are discussed below:

By Domicile

Article 5 lays down two conditions for citizenship

A person must have the domicile in the territory of India before the commencement of the Act.
He must fulfil any of the three conditions given below:

He must have born in the territory of India, or
Either of his parents must have born in the territory of India, or
He must have been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than 5 years immediately preceding such commencement.

‘Domicile’ refers to the intention of residing in a country for an indefinite period.

The domicile is of two types:

Domicile of Origin
Domicile of Choice

1) Domicile of Origin

Every person is born with the Domicile of Origin. The domicile of origin is received by him at the time of his birth. The basis of obtaining such domicile is the paternity or maternity. Thus, a child will acquire the domicile of the same country to which the father was domiciled at the time of the child’s birth. The domicile of origin continues until a person acquires the domicile of choice. Once the domicile of choice is suspended then he again obtains the domicile of origin. In the case of a posthumous child, the child will have the domicile of the country to which his father was domiciled at the time of death.

2. Domicile of Choice

A person can acquire the domicile of choice by fulfilling two conditions:

a) Residing in a particular place

(b) Intention to reside permanently or for an indefinite period.

It must be noted that a child whose parents are unknown gets the domicile of the country in which he is found. After the marriage, the wife acquires the domicile of the husband. However, the case is different if they are judicially separated. In India, a person can not have two domiciles.

Citizenship by Migration

Article 6 of the Constitution of India provides that any person who has migrated to the territory of India from Pakistan shall be the Citizen of India at the commencement of the Constitution of India. For the purpose of Citizenship, people have been classified into two categories:

Those who migrated to India before 19th July 1948
Those who migrated India after 19th July 1948

The people who have migrated to India before 19th July 1948 have to fulfil two conditions in order to obtain citizenship:

The person migrated to India or either of his parents or either of his grandparents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935.
The person migrated to India has been ordinarily residing in the territory of India since the date of the migration.

The people who have migrated to India after 19th July 1948 have to fulfil the following four conditions

The person migrated to India or either of his parents or either of his grandparents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935.
The person has applied for citizenship.
He has resided in India for 6 months
He has been registered as a citizen of India by the officer appointed by the Government of the Dominion of India.

Citizenship by Registration

Article 8 of the Indian Constitution provides that the persons whose parents or grandparents were born in Indian but residing abroad can obtain the citizenship of India by registration.

Persons Voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign state

Article 9 provides that any person who has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign state shall not remain the citizen of India. The cases of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship shall be dealt with by the Government of India under the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Rights of Citizens

Certain rights are available only to the citizens of India and not the aliens or foreign nationals. These rights are:

Right to Vote
Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, caste, sex, place of birth. (Article 15)
Right to Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. (Article 16)
Protection of Freedom of Speech and Expression. (Article 19)
Protection of language, script or culture of the minorities. (Article-29)
Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

Power of Parliament to make laws with respect to citizenship

Article – 11 of the Indian Constitution provides that the Parliament can make laws related to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and matters relating to citizenship. In exercise of this power, the parliament enacted the Citizenship Act in 1955. Several changes were made in the Act in 2003 and 2005 to introduce the concept of overseas citizenship of India.

References

V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India 44 (13th ed. 2017)
State Trading Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CTO, AIR 1963 SC 1811
Anmol Goyal and Sumit Gyal, Concept of Domicile, 1 JUSIMPERATOR, 5 (2017)
Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654
D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1955 SC 334
Kulathil Mammu v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1614
State of U.P. v. Rehmatullah, (1971) 2 SCC 113

Thank You, If you are a law student or professional get in touch with us at our Instagram Facebook and Linkedin page also.

Latest Posts

Archives

Introduction

History

Current Scenario

Cause and Effects

Conclusion

References

Latest posts

Law

What is Law?

Justice

Justice in the Modern society

Civil Justice

Criminal Justice

Morality

The Distinction between Law and Morals

Relation between Law and Morals

Starting point of law

Morals as a test of positive law

Conclusion

Introduction to ‘Free Consent’

‘Free Consent in the Indian Contract Act, 1872’

Coercion

Undue Influence

Fraud

Misrepresentation

Mistake

INTRODUCTION

What is Citizenship

Difference between Citizenship, Nationality, Overseas Citizenship and Resident

Nationality

Overseas Citizenship

Resident

What are the different modes of acquiring Citizenship

By Domicile

1) Domicile of Origin

2. Domicile of Choice

Citizenship by Migration

Citizenship by Registration

Persons Voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign state

Rights of Citizens

Power of Parliament to make laws with respect to citizenship

References

Lexpeeps

Our Services

Contact Us