Submit :
News                      Photos                     Just In                     Debate Topic                     Latest News                    Articles                    Local News                    Blog Posts                     Pictures                    Reviews                    Recipes                    
  
An open letter to the honourable CJI
Your Honour, Most humbly and respectfully, I write to bring to your kind notice, certain provisions of the Constitution of India, which have not been interpreted by subjecting them to the 'Golden rule' and the 'Mischief rule' prescribed in The General Clauses Act, 1897, leading to certain absurdity.
Art58 (1) (a) of the Constitution reads "No person shall be eligible for election as President unless, he is a citizen of India." A similar entry existed in Art66 and has also been made in Art84 and Art173 by the sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution in 1963. From the humble knowledge of the English grammar that this writer has, this appears to be a disabling provision leaving no exception.

It does not even spare a bona fide Indian if he/she so much as takes citizenship of a foreign State (Art9). If such is the case, who were then intended to be disabled by incorporating this provision? Since the word 'Indian' which denotes our identity and nationality does not appear anywhere in the Constitution of India and Part II of the Constitution bears the heading 'Citizenship' which is synonymous with 'Nationality', the terms like 'Any person', 'No person' and 'a citizen of India' appearing at various places in the Constitution of India, must be construed to refer to an Indian national by birth.

Why else the writers of the Constitution have inserted a precondition like 'unless a citizen of India'? Can the word 'unless' ever be applied to an Indian in India to be citizen of India? Is he not automatically a citizen of India by reasons mentioned in Part II of the Constitution? Where our nationality does stand? Even if we set all this aside and proceed strictly by written word, then also this provision which acts as a disabling provision for Indians in their own motherland, must act so for others too, who do not come within the meaning of the term 'citizen of India' as obtaining in the Constitution. In other words, the persons finding a mention in Part II of the Constitution can only be considered to be falling under the category of citizen of India and no one else.

Others, which include all foreigners, must be dealt with under 'The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955'. And there-in too, it is my humble submission, the parliament must ensure that a clause on extending 'Reciprocal treatment' must be present as there is no other way a sovereign nation can ensure or secure fundamental right to equality of its citizens beyond its territory. It is therefore prayed the Union of India may please be directed to make necessary amendment.

Presently I most humbly urge upon you to preside over the proceeding in the PIL filed by the RMM on ascertaining the status of foreigners who are citizens by registration, pending since Mar 2007 and issue suitable direction to the EC on the subject, disposing the PIL and setting at rest an issue that impinges on our sovereignty.

And since precedents do acquire force of law, it is also prayed that all records of a person not finding a mention in Part II, having been an MP may also be directed to be struck off. With regards of the kind, which reading Munshi Premchand's 'Panch Parmeshwar' instil about the judges in a 10 year old boy and stay forever.

Yours sincerely,

Rajendra Bharatiya

COMMENTS (1)
Guest
Name
Email Id
Verification Code
Email me on reply to my comment
Email me when other CJs comment on this article
}
Sign in to set your preference
Advertisement

Interesting content

merinews for RTI activists

Create email alerts

Total subscribers: 208741
Advertisement
Vibhav Kant Upadhyay
ISL - Indian Super League 2014
Indian Super League Fixtures
Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.