Citizenship rules on foreign passport evidence upheld; Section 9(2) sustained as valid delegation and constitutional.

Rule 3 of Schedule III to the Citizenship Rules, 1956 was upheld as a valid evidentiary rule because it treated possession of a foreign passport as conclusive proof of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship, while the substantive consequence of loss of Indian citizenship flowed from Section 9(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Supreme Court held that the rule fell within the rule-making power under Section 9(2) since it regulated proof of a relevant fact rather than creating substantive law. Section 9(2) was also sustained as constitutional: Parliament was authorised by Article 11 to regulate citizenship, and the delegation was confined to fact-finding under prescribed evidentiary rules, not legislative abdication.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Rule 3 of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, which treats the obtaining of a foreign passport as conclusive proof of voluntary acquisition of that foreign citizenship, is within the rule-making power conferred by Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955; (ii) whether Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, is unconstitutional for violating fundamental rights or for excessive delegation.

Issue (i): whether Rule 3 of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956, which treats the obtaining of a foreign passport as conclusive proof of voluntary acquisition of that foreign citizenship, is within the rule-making power conferred by Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Analysis: The governing test was whether the impugned rule was truly a rule of evidence or, in substance, a rule of substantive law. The Court held that rules creating rebuttable or irrebuttable presumptions may still fall within the law of evidence if they regulate proof of relevant facts. Applying that approach, the obtaining of a foreign passport was treated as a fact inherently relevant to the question whether foreign citizenship had been voluntarily acquired. The rule did not create the substantive consequence of loss of citizenship; that consequence flowed from Section 9(1). The rule merely attached conclusive evidentiary value to a relevant fact in the enquiry under Section 9(2).

Conclusion: The rule was held to be a valid rule of evidence and within the scope of Section 9(2), and the challenge to Rule 3 failed.

Issue (ii): whether Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, is unconstitutional for violating fundamental rights or for excessive delegation.

Analysis: The Court held that Article 11 expressly authorises Parliament to make provision for acquisition and termination of citizenship, and that the right to claim citizenship is not itself a fundamental right insulated from parliamentary regulation. Section 9(2) was found to provide sufficient guidance, because the legislature had laid down the basic principle that voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship ends Indian citizenship, and had confined the delegated power to determining questions of fact through prescribed authority and rules of evidence. The provision therefore did not amount to an abdication of legislative function.

Conclusion: Section 9(2) was upheld as constitutional and not an instance of excessive delegation.

Final Conclusion: The majority sustained the statutory scheme governing termination of citizenship and rejected the constitutional attack on the enquiry machinery, with the result that the petitions were dismissed.

---