Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Allegiance2ItalianConstitution
Petition for Review of Order dated 9th May, 2006
Home | Do You Know Your Sonia? - by Dr. Subramanian Swamy | Supreme Court Judgment - 2001 | My Delhi High Court Writ Petition | Petition for Review of Order dated 9th May, 2006 | Attorney General of India or Attorney of Smt. Gandhi? | Complaint dated 7th May, 2007 against Justice Vijendra Jain and Justice Swatantra Kumar | Reminder dated 7th January 2008, to CJI | Application dated 14th October, 2008 to prosecute Justice Vijendra Jain and Justice Swatantra Kumar

IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT AT DELHI

(Original Side)

      Civil  Misc. Petition No.              of 2006
                      Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790  of 2006

 

In the matter of:

Application Under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to restore the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 recalling the Order Dated 9th May 2006;

 

In the matter of:

Milap Choraria,

Son of late Shri Deep Chand Choraria

Permanent Address: P.O. Tamkore, District: Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

Presently Resident of B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini,

Delhi-110085……….                            Petitioner

                                                          -Vs-

1.                  Union of India,

Through

Cabinet Secretary to the Government of India,

Rashtrapati Bhawan,

New Delhi-110004

 

2.                  The Secretary to the Government of India,

The Ministry of Home Affairs,

North Block, Central Secretariat,

New Delhi - 110 001

 

3.                  The Secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, North Block,

New Delhi-110001

 

4.                  Indian Embassy in Italy represented by

Indian Ambassador to Italy,

Through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, North Block,

New Delhi-110001

 

5.         The Secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division,
Jaisalmer House, 26 Man Singh Road,
New Delhi-110 011

 

6.         Smt. Sonia Gandhi,

Wife of Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi,

10, Janpath,

New Delhi-110001

 

7.         Shri Rahul Gandhi,

Son of Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi,

10, Janpath,

New Delhi-110001       ……     RESPONDENTS

 

The Humble Petition on behalf of the Petitioner above named;

Most Respect Sheweth,

1.                    That the Petitioner filed aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 as a Public Interest Litigation and on 9th May 2006 moved, when Hon’ble High Court pleased to dismiss it. Photocopy of the Order dated 9th May 2006 passed by the Hon’ble High Court is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “A”.

 

2.                                In view of the dismissal order passed by the Hon’ble High Court the Petitioner has filed instant Application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for the restoration of the aforesaid Writ Petition after recalling the Order passed on 9th May 2006 on the interalia grounds that the following important issues were not considered:

(1)  No Court in India can take judicial notice of any foreign laws. While on the other hand when the aforesaid Writ Petition was dismissed the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to take ‘Judicial Notice of the foreign Laws’.

(2)  That from the observations made in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12th September 2001 it appears that during the hearing in respect of the prayers therein to declare Section 5(1)(C) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 as ultra vires, the Hon’ble Supreme Court wanted to know some specific prima-facie evidences, from the respective Petitioners in support of their prayers. In this context this Petitioner humbly submits that in his instant Writ Petition he tried to fulfill such requirements through adducing evidences and averment with reference to his similar prayers.

(3)  That the Petitioner of the instant Writ Petition has just not only placed a simple issue relating to the Citizenship of the Respondent No. 6 and 7, for the adjudication by the Hon’ble High Court, but has also placed a very serious and important question relating to the Constitutional proprietary. Issues raised by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition are further strengthened in the light of the observation made by the Hon’ble High Court itself. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble High Court, aforesaid serious question can be placed in a different way that whether a person under the Constitution of Federal Republic of Germany was a German and still could lay claim to the citizenship of Federal Republic of Germany, while presently he is also holding the Citizenship of India, at all can he hold any Constitutional Office in India and can govern to the people of India, under the Citizenship scheme of India and also under the different categories of the Citizenship or under the Citizenship Act, 1955? This aspect was completely missed from the consideration, when Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.

(4)  That the Respondent No. 6 was allowed to contest the Elections for Parliament, just because Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 overridden the provision provided under Article 102 of the Constitution of India,  by not providing any preventing provision, essentially required in respect of citizenships of India for another category of citizenship. Such blindness in the provision of Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 allowed the authorities to grant Indian citizenship to the Respondent No. 6 just like Citizenship by birth, which should not have been allowed.

(5)  That as per Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 the Respondent No. 7 cannot be qualified as an Indian Citizen by birth, though he was born in India, but then his mother was an Italian Citizen, thus under Italian Law he was not an Indian Citizen by birth, but an Italian Citizen by birth, under the Citizenship Law of Italy.      

(6)  The Petitioner never can file a vexatious litigation.      

 

2.         That in the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment, it was held in clear terms that no Court in India can take judicial notice of a foreign Law, including Italian/German Law. While Hon’ble High Court took the Judicial Notice of the foreign law i. e. Italian Law or German Law, in this matter, by describing the differences between Indian and Italian Citizenship laws and impact upon the Italian Law from the history of fascist invasion. The Petitioner humbly submits that the aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 is based on in complete conformity with the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment and fulfills the requirements to declare Section 5(1)(C) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 as ultra vires after examination and adjudication of the referred averment and pleading with supporting adducing evidences to prove interalia following material facts in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act:

(1)       That the Respondent No. 6 was born in Italy as an Italian Citizen by Birth;

(2)       That when the Respondent No. 7 was born in India his mother was an Italian Citizen and not an Indian Citizen by any stretch of imagination and as such he was definitely not an Indian Citizen by birth, but an Italian Citizen by birth;

(3)       That according to the Citizenship Law of Italy and the Constitution of Italy, the Respondents No. 6 and 7 never can renounce their “Right to Citizenship of Italy, as it undoubtedly prevails permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and forever, and even if they might have renounced their Citizenship of Italy, it is always recoverable at any time even in remote future, on the expiry of one year from the date of their declaration to the effect in the prescribed manner;

(4)       That when Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted preventive provisions were not made in the law, which were required in accordance with the scheme of the Indian Citizenship read with Article 102 of the Constitution of India under which any person having right to citizenship of any other country or allegiance to any other country, even if he gets citizenship of India under dual citizenship or otherwise, should not have been allowed to hold any Constitutional Office in India. In this case the Respondent No. 6 is allowed to hold the Constitutional Office in violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution of India, thus Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 is liable to be declared as ultra virus to restore constitutional proprietary of Article 102 of the Constitution of India. 

   (5)    That the allegiance of the Respondents No. 6 and 7 to the Constitution of Italy are acknowledged and undoubtedly prevails permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and forever. In such a case they ought to be disqualified for being                                                                                                                                                                     chosen as, and for being a member of either House of Parliament under Article 102 of the Constitution of India.

   (6)    That Section 5(1)(c), read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, is enacted in violation of the Scheme of Indian Citizenship and Article 102 of the Constitution of India  under which no Indian Citizen having also citizenship of any other country can hold any constitutional office. While the enactment of Section 5(1)(C) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act contrarily opens the doors for the Respondent No. 6 to hold the Constitutional office in violation of the Constitutional Proprietary.

   (7)    That Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 is enacted by overriding the provisions of the Article 102 of the Constitution of India granting the Citizenship of India to the Respondent No. 6 and allowed to contest the election for Parliament and opens the doors to hold any Constitutional office in violation of the Constitutional Proprietary.

 

3.         That the Petitioner Humbly submits that he being a much less educated person, representing the vast majority of Indians, and since in any Indian Court he is entering after a gap of 10 Years, and the Petitioner never gave any lecture or spoke at any place as a speaker, therefore there might be some linguistic communication gap between the Petitioner and the Hon’ble High Court or he might have failed to place the correct direction of the Judgment dated 12th September 2001, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced by a BENCH comprising of Hon’ble CJI, R.C. Lahoti & Doraiswamy Raju JJ., in Appeal (civil) No. 4400 of 2000 along with C.A. No.4405/2000 pronounced by R. C. Lahoti J., reported in the AIR: 2001:SC at pages: 3689 to 3703 in relation to the Constitutional Validity of the Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 2005, and dispute relates to Right to Italian Citizenship of the Respondents No. 6 and 7. 

 

4.         That the Petitioner since his childhood has been engaged in activities of the larger public interests, and he even never can think to file any vexatious litigation. He raised the important issue through aforesaid Writ Petition in consideration of its importance in the national interests and proprietary of the Constitution of India. For this very reason the Petitioner filed the aforesaid Writ Petition just in the national and larger public interests and made averment and pleaded with adducing evidences relating to question of the fact, based on the Italian Law, to prove that the Respondents No. 6 and 7 are not illegible to contest election to either House of Parliament, as they were supposed to be debarred by Article 102 of the Constitution of India, and that Section 5(1)(c ) and 5(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 overridden upon the aforesaid Constitutional provisions by opening the unconstitutional doors for the Respondent No. 6 to contest the Election  for Parliament.        

 

5.         That petitioner Humbly submits and wants to wash the impression from the mind of the Hon’ble Court, as the same were appeared on 9th May 2006, in the way of the observations made by Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice, at the time of starting of the hearing of the Writ Petition like that you are more experienced than us, but are you aware about 1946’s fascist invasion in the Italy. In fact education wise the qualification of the Petitioner is just sixth Class and as such he is one of the least knowledgeable persons about any fascist history.

 

6.         That being a strict adherent of Jain Philosophy  and coming from the background of the family having the following of strict discipline in confirming to the rich Jain traditions based on 1st Jain Mahabrata i. e. TRUTH, Petitioner has always taken care to adhere to the principles of honesty, sincerity with complete truth and maintain the same in his working. He belongs to that large family in which the great saint Acharya Mahaprganayaji is born. His own two sisters left and renounced their all family relations to become reclusive saints under His Holiness. (Now one of his own sister on 25th July 2006 breathed her last after 13 days of constant Tapsya including 5 days of the Santhara: the Jain tradition to adopt the death as was adopted by Acharya Vinoba Bhave). From his small Village 25 boys and girls left and renounced their all family relations to become recluse saints under His Holiness.

 

7.         That the Petitioner has always acted with a sprit for the improvement of the system in the larger interest of the society vis--vis the country. The Petitioner do admit that some people having influence or are powerful and are connected with the people in top positions and having access to those who move in the corridors of Power, do not like the working of the Petitioner, simply because their vested interests are critically affected.  Hence, it is obvious that they might try to manipulate the system as and when it suits to their needs, with the help of their lobbying competency and connectivity in the hierarchy of power circle. The Petitioner, without having any political or monetary interests, have been always tried to raise issues of the Larger Public or national Interests. It was always experienced that in the most of the matters at the initial stage people having the vested interests might have got success for time being, but as a matter of fact that finally the truth gets justice, and the Petitioner gets the feeling of being vindicated as our own Constitution holds full throttle, as loudly as possible, “SATYAMAIV JAIYTEY”. Whenever issues raised by him were adjudicated or intervened by the Judiciary, he got full justice strengthening his confidence in the Temple of Justice, though at times his actions might have gone against large Business Houses in the country.

 

8.         That during the past 23 years or so he had some different experiences as well, owing to his long severe sufferings, engineered under the pressure of the Politico-Criminal-Nexus. In spite of such constant severe sufferings, he has always tried to maintain his cool to work in the larger public interests, in spite of severe critical situations with heavy pressures, which he always tries to take as an acknowledgment and treat them as awards in the form of severe victimization for his honesty. After all one has to pay the price for whatever one wants to hold. Under the background of regular working in the larger public interests, some of the facts relating to his activities in the larger public interest and his sufferings, and for the prima-facie satisfaction of the Hon’ble Court that the Petitioner never can or intended to file and move a vexatious litigation, some documents are being filed separately, which were earlier annexed with the initially prepared Petition under Section 151 of the CPC. List of the documents filed separately as referred & annexed herein and marked as Annexure “B”.

9.       That in consideration of the facts and circumstances as aforesaid in the interest of Justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the Petitioner Humbly prays under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, before the Hon’ble High Court please to;

a)       PASS an ORDER to admit Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006, recalling the earlier order dated 9th May 2006;

b)       GRANT stay of the operation of the Order dated 9th May 2006 passed in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7790 of 2006 of this Hon’ble Court till disposal of this Petition; and

c)       PASS further order or orders as Hon’ble High Court deem fit and proper for the ends of justice. 

  

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

 

New Delhi                               Filed by (MILAP CHORARIA)

Filed 24th May, 2006                          Petitioner-in-person         

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here

TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL