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.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.