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-à-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
