https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168803 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. en-us Fri, 16 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 May 2019 16:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168803 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168803