A man petitioned the Supreme Court, requesting a directive that he not be deported to Pakistan until his claim to be an Indian citizen was resolved in accordance with Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act. The Supreme Court has given notice on the plea.
Justice Surya Kant and Justice J. B. Pardiwala’s panel also ordered a status quo in the case. The District Superintendent of Police (Godhra), State of Gujarat, and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, have both received notice on the request.
The petition claims that the petitioner was educated in India after being born in Godhra, Gujarat, in 1962. The petitioner left for Pakistan in 1976, but he returned to India in 1983. On 2 March 1984, he wed an Indian lady in Godhra, and the couple had three children together. The petitioner left India once more before at last returning in 1991 with his family after getting all necessary documents, including a residence permit.
Because he was married to an Indian citizen, the petitioner launched a normal civil complaint before the Court of Civil Judge, pleading for the court to proclaim him an Indian citizen in accordance with Section 5(1)(C) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955. He also requested a halt to his deportation while the Union of India considered his plea under Section 9(2) of the Act. The Civil Judge ruled in 1999 that the Court lacked authority to determine the petitioner’s citizenship. The Civil Judge did let a portion of his decision to mandate that he not be deported back until the outcome of his Citizenship Act application, though.
The Union of India filed a delayed appeal under Section 96 of the CrPC against the Civil Judge’s decision before the Principal District Judge after a 4-year waiting period. The Civil Judge’s judgement on July 12,202 was overturned by the District Judge.
The petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court after feeling wronged by the District Judge’s decision. On August 2, 2022, the High Court denied his appeal, ruling that there was no genuine legal issue.
The petitioner, who was represented by Senior Advocate IH Sayed, argued that the High Court ignored the fact that the petitioner had become susceptible to deportation and that it would be against the law if he were not safeguarded until the application was decided.
The petition was filed through Advocate Taruna Singh Gohil.
Case Status: Akil Valibhai Piplodwala (Lokhandwala) vs District Superintendent of Police, Panchmahal, Godhra and Others – SLP(C) No. 16069/2022
Read more legal news here.