Unit-I: Constitutional Law-I-Preamble and Citizenship

Unit-I: Preamble and Citizenship

Table of Contents

Q Discuss the significance of the Preamble to the Indian Constitution. How does it reflect the objectives of the Constitution?

Significance of the Preamble to the Indian Constitution and Its Reflection of Constitutional Objectives

Introduction to the Preamble

The Preamble to the Indian Constitution serves as an introductory statement that outlines the guiding principles and fundamental values of the Constitution. It was adopted on 26th November 1949 and came into effect on 26th January 1950, the same day the Constitution came into force.

Significance of the Preamble

  1. Reflects the Philosophy of the Constitution
  • The Preamble encapsulates the essence and underlying philosophy of the Indian Constitution.
  • It reflects the core values that guided the framers of the Constitution during its drafting.
  1. Acts as a Guiding Light for Interpretation
  • The Preamble is often used by courts to interpret ambiguous provisions in the Constitution.
  • In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and can be used to understand its basic structure.
  1. Declares the Source of Authority
  • The Preamble begins with “We, the people of India…,” emphasizing that the Constitution derives its authority from the people and not from any external power.
  1. Lays Down the Objectives of the Constitution
  • It outlines the ultimate goals: Justice, Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
  • These are the foundational values meant to shape the legal and political framework of the country.
  1. Promotes National Unity and Integrity
  • By proclaiming India as a “Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic,” the Preamble underscores the nature of the Indian polity and promotes unity among diverse cultures, religions, and regions.
  1. Embodies the Basic Structure Doctrine
  • The features mentioned in the Preamble, such as democracy and secularism, are considered part of the basic structure of the Constitution, which cannot be altered even by constitutional amendments (as per the Kesavananda Bharati case).

Reflection of Objectives in the Preamble

ObjectiveExplanation
JusticeSocial, economic, and political justice ensures fairness in society, law, and public policy. The Constitution seeks to eliminate inequality and discrimination.
LibertyIncludes liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship, ensuring individual freedom within a legal framework.
EqualityPromotes equal opportunity and treatment before the law, eliminating discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
FraternityPromotes a sense of brotherhood among citizens, ensuring the dignity of the individual and unity and integrity of the nation.
SovereigntyIndia is free to make its own decisions without external control.
SocialismAims to reduce inequality and distribute wealth fairly through a mixed economy.
SecularismThe state has no official religion and treats all religions equally.
DemocracyGuarantees a system where the government is elected by the people and accountable to them.
RepublicThe head of the state is elected and not hereditary.

Conclusion

The Preamble is not just a decorative preface but a vital part of the Constitution. It mirrors the intent, ideals, and aspirations of the framers and serves as a moral and political compass for governance and interpretation. While it is not enforceable in a court of law, its value lies in its ability to shape constitutional thought and practice in India.

I. Concept of Citizenship

Citizenship refers to the legal relationship between an individual and the state, conferring certain rights and duties. In India, the concept of citizenship is governed by:

  • Part II of the Indian Constitution (Articles 5–11)
  • The Citizenship Act, 1955 (as amended from time to time)

Unlike other fundamental rights, only citizens (not non-citizens) are entitled to certain key rights such as:

  • Right against discrimination (Article 15)
  • Equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 16)
  • Freedom of speech and expression (Article 19)
  • Cultural and educational rights (Articles 29–30)
  • Right to vote and hold public office

II. Constitutional Provisions: Articles 5 to 11

1. Article 5 – Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution

A person was deemed a citizen of India on 26th January 1950 if they:

  • Had domicile in India and
  • Were born in India, or
  • Had a parent born in India, or
  • Had been ordinarily resident in India for at least 5 years before commencement

2. Article 6 – Rights of citizenship of certain persons who migrated from Pakistan

  • Recognized persons migrating from Pakistan before 19th July 1948 as Indian citizens if they had settled in India.
  • Those who migrated after this date required registration.

3. Article 7 – Rights of citizenship of migrants to Pakistan

  • Persons who migrated to Pakistan after March 1, 1947, were not entitled to Indian citizenship, unless they returned on resettlement permit.

4. Article 8 – Rights of citizenship of Indians abroad

  • Persons of Indian origin residing outside India could register as citizens if their parents or grandparents were born in India and they were registered at Indian diplomatic missions.

5. Article 9 – Voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship

  • If a person voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, they cease to be an Indian citizen.

6. Article 10 – Continuance of rights

  • Guarantees continued citizenship unless laws made by Parliament provide otherwise.

7. Article 11 – Parliament’s power

  • Empowers Parliament to make laws regarding acquisition and termination of citizenship.
    → Basis for Citizenship Act, 1955.

III. Citizenship Act, 1955: Acquisition & Termination

A. Acquisition of Citizenship

As per the Citizenship Act, 1955, citizenship can be acquired in five ways:

  1. By Birth (Section 3)
  • A person born in India on or after 26 January 1950 is a citizen by birth.
  • Amendments (1987 & 2003): At least one parent must be an Indian citizen or not an illegal migrant.
  1. By Descent (Section 4)
  • A person born outside India is a citizen by descent if either parent was an Indian citizen at the time of birth, with conditions.
  1. By Registration (Section 5)
  • Allows registration for persons of Indian origin, persons married to Indian citizens, and minor children.
  1. By Naturalization (Section 6)
  • Granted to foreigners who fulfill the eligibility criteria, including residence in India for 11 years out of the last 14.
  1. By Incorporation of Territory (Section 7)
  • If a new territory becomes part of India, the government may specify who among its residents shall be citizens.

B. Termination of Citizenship

  1. By Renunciation (Section 8)
  • A citizen may voluntarily give up Indian citizenship.
  1. By Termination (Section 9)
  • Automatic loss of citizenship if a person acquires foreign citizenship voluntarily.
  1. By Deprivation (Section 10)
  • In certain cases, the Government of India can deprive a naturalized citizen of citizenship on grounds such as:
    • Fraud in the acquisition,
    • Disloyalty,
    • Criminal acts within 5 years of naturalization, etc.

IV. Important Case Laws

  1. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Abdul Khader (1961 AIR 1467)
  • The Supreme Court held that a person who acquires Pakistani citizenship loses Indian citizenship under Article 9.
  1. Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 1052)
  • Clarified that returning migrants from Pakistan must have a resettlement permit to claim Indian citizenship under Article 6.
  1. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984 AIR 1420)
  • Reiterated the importance of citizenship as a basis for constitutional rights and public employment benefits.
  1. Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 665
  • Discussed illegal migration and its implications on citizenship and national security.

V. Recent Developments

  • Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA):
  • Provides for Indian citizenship to persecuted minorities (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians) from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who entered India before 31st December 2014.
  • Excludes Muslims, raising constitutional concerns under Article 14 (equality before law).
  • The Act has been challenged in courts and is pending judicial scrutiny on the grounds of secularism and equality.

Conclusion

Citizenship in India is a constitutional and statutory concept governed by Articles 5–11 and the Citizenship Act, 1955. It confers vital rights and obligations and plays a key role in national identity and integrity. Judicial interpretation and legislative amendments continue to shape its contours in light of evolving social and political contexts.

Q Define the term “State” under Article 12. Why is it important for the enforcement of fundamental rights? Refer to Mohmmad Raza v. State of Bombay.

Definition of “State” under Article 12 and Its Importance for the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

I. Text of Article 12

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the term “State” for the purpose of Part III (Fundamental Rights):

“In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘the State’ includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”

II. Components of “State” under Article 12

The definition is inclusive and broad, encompassing:

ComponentExplanation
Government of India (Union)Executive branch including ministries, departments, and officials.
Parliament of IndiaLok Sabha and Rajya Sabha (legislative wing).
State GovernmentsExecutive branches of each Indian state.
State LegislaturesLegislative Assemblies and Councils of states.
Local AuthoritiesMunicipalities, Panchayats, Zilla Parishads, etc.
Other AuthoritiesIncludes statutory bodies, public sector undertakings (PSUs), universities, and even private bodies performing public functions (as interpreted by courts).

III. Importance of Article 12 for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

1. Determines Liability under Part III

  • Fundamental Rights (Articles 14 to 32) are enforceable against the “State”, not generally against private individuals.
  • If an entity is considered “State” under Article 12, its actions can be challenged in courts for violating Fundamental Rights.

2. Facilitates Judicial Review

  • Courts can issue writs under Article 32 (SC) or Article 226 (HC) against authorities falling within the definition of “State”.
  • Acts of “State” bodies inconsistent with constitutional rights can be declared void under Article 13.

3. Ensures Accountability of Public Authorities

  • Article 12 helps citizens hold government agencies accountable for arbitrary or discriminatory actions (e.g., in employment, education, service matters).

4. Expands the Scope of Rights

  • The judiciary has gradually expanded the meaning of “State” to include instrumentalities or agencies of the government, thereby extending protection of Fundamental Rights even in semi-governmental and autonomous bodies.

IV. Landmark Judicial Interpretations

1. Mohammad Raza v. State of Bombay (AIR 1966 SC 1436)

  • Facts: Mohammad Raza, a Pakistani national, was expelled by the Bombay government. He challenged the order, claiming it violated his fundamental rights.
  • Issue: Whether the action of the Bombay government could be challenged under Article 12.
  • Held: The State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) is a “State” under Article 12, and its executive actions are subject to scrutiny under Part III of the Constitution.
  • Significance: Reaffirmed that State includes both legislative and executive branches, and their actions must conform to Fundamental Rights.

2. Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (AIR 1967 SC 1857)

  • Expanded “other authorities” to include any authority created by statute and having government control.

3. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (AIR 1981 SC 487)

  • Laid down a “functionality test” to decide whether a body is an instrumentality of the State:
  • Financial aid by the government
  • Monopoly status
  • Deep and pervasive control by the government
  • Functions of public importance

4. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649

  • Held that BCCI is not a “State” under Article 12 but left scope for judicial review if any public function is affected.

V. Summary Table: Why Article 12 Matters

AspectSignificance
Defines ScopeDetermines who can be sued for violation of Fundamental Rights.
Judicial ReviewEnables court scrutiny of legislative and executive actions.
Inclusion of BodiesExpands to include PSUs, universities, etc., under government control.
Access to RemediesAllows citizens to seek remedies under Articles 32 and 226.

VI. Conclusion

Article 12 is the gateway to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It ensures that all instrumentalities of the State are bound to respect constitutional rights and enables courts to protect citizens from arbitrary and unjust actions. The inclusion of cases like Mohammad Raza v. State of Bombay underlines the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional accountability.

Q Discuss the rules of interpretation under Article 13. How do they affect laws inconsistent with fundamental rights?

Rules of Interpretation under Article 13 and Their Effect on Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights

🔷 I. Introduction to Article 13

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution plays a vital role in safeguarding Fundamental Rights (Part III) by ensuring that all laws, whether pre- or post-Constitution, must comply with these rights.

🔷 II. Text of Article 13

ClauseProvision
13(1)All laws in force in the territory of India before the commencement of the Constitution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III, shall be void.
13(2)The State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights, and any such law shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
13(3)Defines “law” and “laws in force” to include ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, etc.
13(4)Nothing in this article shall apply to constitutional amendments (added by the 24th Amendment Act, 1971).

🔷 III. Rules of Interpretation under Article 13

✅ 1. Doctrine of Severability

  • If a part of a law is inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, only that part is struck down, not the entire law.
  • ✅ Case: R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India (AIR 1957 SC 628)
  • The SC held that the invalid part of a statute can be separated from the valid part if they are independent and severable.

✅ 2. Doctrine of Eclipse

  • A pre-constitutional law inconsistent with FRs is not dead but becomes inoperative (eclipsed) and can revive if the inconsistency is removed.
  • ✅ Case: Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (AIR 1955 SC 781)
  • A pre-Constitution law was held to be eclipsed by Article 13(1), but it became valid again when the constitutional bar was removed by an amendment.

✅ 3. Prospective Overruling

  • A judicial decision declaring a law unconstitutional applies prospectively, not retrospectively.
  • ✅ Case: Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (AIR 1967 SC 1643)
  • Held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights, and this interpretation would apply only prospectively.

✅ 4. Harmonious Construction

  • Courts interpret statutes in a way that harmonizes the law with Fundamental Rights rather than declaring it void unless absolutely necessary.
  • ✅ Case: Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973 AIR 1461)
  • The SC emphasized balancing Fundamental Rights with directive principles, using harmonious interpretation.

✅ 5. Golden Rule of Interpretation

  • Courts avoid literal meanings if it leads to absurd results; instead, they interpret laws to promote constitutional values.
  • ✅ Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)
  • Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include a broad spectrum of personal liberty, applying a purposive approach.

✅ 6. Reading Down

  • Courts may read down a law to bring it in conformity with the Constitution instead of striking it down completely.
  • ✅ Case: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
  • Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down, but other sections were read down to maintain constitutionality.

🔷 IV. Effect of Article 13 on Inconsistent Laws

➤ 1. Judicial Review Becomes Mandatory

  • Article 13 empowers courts to review laws and declare them void if inconsistent with Fundamental Rights.
  • ✅ A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) initially took a narrow view, but later,
  • ✅ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India expanded the scope of judicial review under Article 21.

➤ 2. Protection Against State Overreach

  • Article 13(2) ensures the State cannot pass laws that infringe Fundamental Rights. If passed, such laws are automatically void.

➤ 3. Pre-constitutional Laws

  • Laws made before 26 January 1950 remain valid only to the extent they conform to Fundamental Rights.

➤ 4. Amendments Excluded

  • By Article 13(4), constitutional amendments are not considered “law” under Article 13.
  • ✅ Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala limited this by stating that even amendments cannot violate the basic structure.

🔷 V. Landmark Judgments Summary Table

Case NameDoctrine / Rule Established
R.M.D. ChamarbaugwalaSeverability
Bhikaji Narain DhakrasEclipse
Golak NathProspective Overruling
Maneka GandhiExpansive and purposive interpretation
Shreya SinghalReading down + invalidating unconstitutional provisions
Kesavananda BharatiBasic Structure + limited Article 13(4)

🔷 VI. Conclusion

Article 13 is the safeguard mechanism of the Indian Constitution. The interpretative doctrines evolved by Indian courts ensure that laws remain dynamic, flexible, and aligned with constitutional morality. Through Article 13, Fundamental Rights reign supreme, and no law—old or new—can violate them with impunity.

Q Explain the concept of judicial review under Article 13. Provide examples of its application.

✅ Judicial Review under Article 13 – Concept and Application

🔷 I. What is Judicial Review?

Judicial Review refers to the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive actions. If a law or action is found inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, it is declared null and void under Article 13.

🔷 II. Text of Article 13 and Judicial Review

Article 13 lays the constitutional foundation for judicial review:

  • Article 13(1): Pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void.
  • Article 13(2): The State shall not make any law violating Fundamental Rights. If it does, such a law is void.
  • Article 13(3): Defines “law” broadly (includes rules, regulations, orders, notifications, etc.).
  • Article 13(4): Excludes constitutional amendments from the purview of Article 13 (overruled in part by case law).

Hence, Article 13 empowers courts to check whether laws are constitutional and invalidate them if they infringe Fundamental Rights.

🔷 III. Scope and Features of Judicial Review under Article 13

FeatureExplanation
Constitutional SupremacyAny law inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid.
Guardianship of Fundamental RightsProtects citizens from legislative and executive excesses.
Doctrine of SeverabilityOnly unconstitutional parts of the law are struck down, not the entire law.
Doctrine of EclipsePre-constitutional laws violating FRs are eclipsed, not void ab initio.

🔷 IV. Judicial Review in Action: Important Case Laws

✅ 1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

  • Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.
  • Held that judicial review is a part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away by constitutional amendment.
  • Though Article 13(4) excluded constitutional amendments, this case reaffirmed judicial review applies if the amendment violates the basic structure.

✅ 2. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

  • Reinforced that judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution.
  • Struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment for taking away the power of judicial review.

✅ 3. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

  • Earlier adopted a narrow interpretation of Article 21.
  • Upheld preventive detention law.

✅ Overruled by:

✅ 4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

  • Marked a turning point.
  • Expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).
  • Introduced procedural fairness and due process in Indian law.
  • Applied judicial review to executive action (impounding passport).

✅ 5. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

  • Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional for violating Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech).
  • Judicial review used to protect free speech in the digital age.

✅ 6. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

  • Held that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 1973 are subject to judicial review if they violate basic structure.

🔷 V. Impact of Judicial Review under Article 13

ImpactExplanation
✅ Preserves constitutional democracyPrevents the legislature or executive from becoming absolute.
✅ Protects individual rightsCitizens can challenge arbitrary laws infringing Fundamental Rights.
✅ Enforces Rule of LawEnsures all actions conform to the Constitution.
✅ Checks misuse of powerActs as a brake on unconstitutional state action.

🔷 VI. Conclusion

Judicial review under Article 13 is a cornerstone of Indian constitutionalism. It gives the judiciary the authority to strike down laws and actions inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, ensuring that constitutional supremacy and the rights of individuals are upheld. It is a living mechanism to protect liberty, democracy, and justice in India.

Q What is the significance of the Preamble in interpreting the Constitution? Discuss with case laws.

The Significance of the Preamble in Interpreting the Constitution of India

Introduction

The Preamble to the Constitution of India serves as the introductory statement that outlines the guiding philosophy, core values, and objectives of the Indian Constitution. Though not enforceable in a court of law, the Preamble has been accorded immense importance in constitutional interpretation and jurisprudence. The Supreme Court of India has referred to the Preamble as the “soul of the Constitution” and “a key to unlock the minds of the framers.”

Text of the Preamble

“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
In our Constituent Assembly this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.”

Initially, the Preamble was viewed as a non-justiciable part of the Constitution. However, over time, the judiciary began to use the Preamble as a tool for interpretation, giving it substantive legal value. The major turning point was the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).

II. Role of the Preamble in Constitutional Interpretation

1. Guiding Light to Understand the Constitution

The Preamble is used by the judiciary as a guiding principle in interpreting ambiguous or unclear provisions in the Constitution. It reflects the intention of the framers and acts as an aid in construction.

🔹 Case Law: Berubari Union Case (1960)

  • The Supreme Court held that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution and hence cannot be enforced in courts.
  • However, this decision was later overruled.

2. Recognition as Part of the Constitution

🔹 Case Law: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

  • Overruled the Berubari case.
  • Held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution.
  • It reflects the basic structure of the Constitution and can be used to interpret constitutional provisions.
  • Justice Sikri observed:

“The Preamble of the Constitution is of extreme importance and the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the grand and noble vision expressed in the Preamble.”

3. Doctrine of Basic Structure

  • The doctrine of basic structure was evolved in Kesavananda Bharati and further solidified in later cases.
  • The Preamble provides keywords such as sovereignty, secularism, democracy, and justice that guide the court in determining what constitutes the basic structure.

🔹 Case Law: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

  • The court used the Preamble to strike down Article 329A, added by the 39th Constitutional Amendment, as it violated the principle of democracy, part of the Preamble and hence the basic structure.

4. Source of Interpretation of Fundamental Rights

The Preamble helps breathe life into Fundamental Rights, guiding their interpretation.

🔹 Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

  • The court expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) using the principles of liberty, dignity, and justice from the Preamble.
  • The decision marked the beginning of substantive due process in Indian constitutional law.

5. Tool for Harmonious Construction

The Preamble aids in the harmonious construction of conflicting provisions of the Constitution. Where different interpretations are possible, the one consistent with the Preamble’s ideals is preferred.

🔹 Case Law: Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)

  • The court interpreted the power of Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights in light of the Preamble’s guarantees, favoring the protection of individual rights.

6. Basis for Evaluating Constitutional Amendments

Even though Article 13(4) excludes constitutional amendments from its purview, amendments that violate the Preamble’s principles may be struck down for violating the basic structure.

🔹 Case Law: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

  • The Supreme Court held that the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure, citing the Preamble.
  • Any amendment destroying this balance was ruled unconstitutional.

III. Keywords of the Preamble and Their Judicial Impact

A. Sovereign

  • Reflects that India is not subject to any external authority.
  • Courts have used this to uphold India’s legislative and judicial autonomy.

B. Socialist

  • Added by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976.
  • Interpreted to promote distributive justice and reduce inequalities.

🔹 D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983):

  • The Supreme Court interpreted socialism to mean economic justice, especially for vulnerable groups like retirees.

C. Secular

  • Also added by the 42nd Amendment.
  • Implies equal respect and treatment of all religions by the State.

🔹 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):

  • Secularism was held to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • Any attempt to promote religious majoritarianism by a State Government can justify President’s Rule.

D. Democratic

  • Upholds equality, popular participation, and the rule of law.

🔹 People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003):

  • The Supreme Court upheld the right of citizens to know about electoral candidates, stating that transparency is essential in a democracy.

E. Justice – Social, Economic, Political

  • The judiciary uses the justice principle to uphold equality and fairness in governance.

🔹 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):

  • Eviction of pavement dwellers without rehabilitation was held to violate Article 21, read with justice and dignity from the Preamble.

IV. Use in Interpreting Statutes and Policies

The courts often refer to the Preamble in interpreting ordinary legislation, especially social welfare laws.

🔹 Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)

  • Declared right to education as part of Article 21, citing the Preamble’s goal of justice and equality.

🔹 Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

  • Extended the right to education further, aligning with Preamble’s objectives.

V. Limitations of the Preamble in Interpretation

  • Not Enforceable: The Preamble is not a source of power or limitation.
  • Cannot be used to override the express language of any provision.
  • Only an interpretative tool, not an independent source of rights.

🔹 Re Berubari Case initially ruled the Preamble is not part of the Constitution. Though this was later overruled, it highlights earlier judicial restraint.

VI. International Influence

  • The role of the Preamble in Indian constitutional interpretation is similar to that in other jurisdictions.
  • U.S. Constitution also uses the Preamble for understanding legislative intent.

VII. Conclusion

The Preamble is not just a ceremonial introduction; it is the philosophical backbone of the Indian Constitution. It encapsulates the core values upon which the entire constitutional edifice rests. Courts have repeatedly acknowledged its importance in:

  • interpreting ambiguous clauses,
  • enforcing Fundamental Rights,
  • upholding the basic structure doctrine, and
  • protecting the democratic and secular fabric of India.

Even though it does not provide independent rights, the Preamble plays a critical role in shaping constitutional law and has been used as a compass to steer judicial interpretation toward justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.

References and Citations

  • Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, AIR 1960 SC 845
  • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
  • Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789
  • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1
  • D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130
  • Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180
  • PUCL v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399

🇮🇳 Loss of Citizenship in India – Constitutional and Legal Provisions

🔷 I. Introduction

Citizenship signifies a person’s legal membership in a nation, conferring rights (like voting, holding public office, etc.) and duties (like paying taxes, obeying laws). In India, the Constitution (Articles 5 to 11) lays down the framework for citizenship, while the Citizenship Act, 1955 (and its subsequent amendments) provides the legal procedures for acquiring and losing citizenship.

This article explores the provisions for the loss of Indian citizenship in detail.

🔷 II. Constitutional Provisions: Articles 5 to 11

While the Constitution recognizes who was a citizen on January 26, 1950, it does not provide detailed procedures for the loss of citizenship. These are handled by the Citizenship Act, 1955, under the authority of Article 11:

Article 11: Empowers the Parliament to make laws regarding the acquisition and termination of citizenship.

Thus, the actual loss of citizenship occurs under statutory law, i.e., the Citizenship Act, 1955.

🔷 III. Loss of Citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955

Under Sections 9, 10, and 10A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, there are three primary ways a person may lose Indian citizenship:

✅ 1. By Renunciation [Section 8]

  • Applicable to citizens of India by birth or descent, who voluntarily give up their Indian citizenship.

🟢 Conditions:

  • The person must be a citizen of India and over 18 years of age.
  • Must make a declaration to renounce citizenship to the Central Government in a prescribed form.
  • On acceptance, he/she and minor children (if any) also lose Indian citizenship.

🟢 Exception:

  • If minor children so affected apply within one year of attaining majority, they may regain citizenship.

🟢 Example:

  • An Indian citizen acquires U.S. citizenship and voluntarily renounces Indian citizenship by making a declaration. This is renunciation.

✅ 2. By Termination [Section 9]

  • Applies when a person automatically ceases to be an Indian citizen.

🟢 Conditions:

  • If an Indian citizen voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, his Indian citizenship is automatically terminated.
  • This is subject to rules framed under the Act.

🟢 Exception:

  • If citizenship of another country is acquired involuntarily (e.g., by birth), Indian citizenship is not terminated.

🟢 Case Reference:

  • Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1052
    The Supreme Court held that acquiring foreign citizenship voluntarily amounts to automatic termination of Indian citizenship under Section 9.

✅ 3. By Deprivation [Section 10]

  • This is a punitive action taken by the Central Government.

🟢 Grounds for Deprivation:

Deprivation is applicable only to citizenship by registration or naturalization, not by birth. The Government can deprive a person of citizenship if:

  1. Fraud or misrepresentation during acquisition of citizenship.
  2. The person has shown disloyalty to the Constitution or State.
  3. The person has unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy during war.
  4. The person has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years or more within 5 years after becoming a citizen.
  5. The person has been ordinarily resident outside India for 7 years continuously without official permission.

🟢 Procedure:

  • The person is given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
  • Can appeal to the authority appointed by the government.

🔷 IV. Relevant Case Laws

🔹 1. Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1052

  • Clarified that Indian citizenship is automatically terminated upon voluntarily acquiring foreign citizenship.
  • No formal order is required once foreign citizenship is acquired.

🔹 2. State of U.P. v. Rehmatullah, AIR 1971 SC 1382

  • Concerned the burden of proof where Indian citizenship is in doubt.
  • The court observed that voluntarily acquiring foreign citizenship leads to termination under Section 9.

🔹 3. Afzal Ullah v. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 264

  • Held that a person cannot be arrested solely for having Pakistani nationality, unless it is shown that Indian citizenship has been validly lost under the Act.

🔷 V. Citizenship Rules and Procedures

  • The Citizenship Rules, 2009 lay down the forms, fees, and procedures for renunciation and deprivation.
  • For renunciation, one must submit Form XXII under Rule 23.
  • In case of deprivation, the government must provide a show cause notice, and the person has the right to appeal.

🔷 VI. OCI and Dual Citizenship – Common Misunderstanding

  • India does not allow dual citizenship.
  • Persons who acquire foreign citizenship automatically lose Indian citizenship.
  • However, such persons may apply for OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) status, which offers limited rights (e.g., travel, property ownership), but not full political rights.

🔷 VII. Key Differences between Renunciation, Termination, and Deprivation

CriteriaRenunciationTerminationDeprivation
Who initiatesCitizenAutomatic by lawGovernment
Voluntary?YesYes (voluntary foreign citizenship)No (involuntary/punishment)
Applies toAll citizensAll citizensRegistered or naturalized citizens
ExampleCitizen gives up Indian passportPerson takes U.S. citizenshipPerson lied or committed crime post-naturalization

🔷 VIII. Recent Amendments and Debates

  • The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 does not affect the provisions for loss of citizenship directly.
  • However, it led to concerns that religiously discriminatory application could emerge, although this pertains to acquisition, not loss.
  • There is also a political debate around the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) and how it could affect citizenship status, especially regarding deprivation.

🔷 IX. Conclusion

The loss of Indian citizenship is governed primarily by the Citizenship Act, 1955, and can occur through renunciation, termination, or deprivation. Each mode is based on different legal grounds and procedures. While renunciation and termination are often voluntary, deprivation is punitive and involves due process.

The loss of citizenship has serious implications: loss of voting rights, disqualification from holding public office, and loss of entitlement to Fundamental Rights guaranteed to citizens (e.g., Article 15, 16, 19).

As such, Indian law ensures that termination or deprivation is not arbitrary, balancing state sovereignty with individual rights.

Q Critically analyze the role of Article 12 in expanding the scope of fundamental rights.

🔍 Critical Analysis of Article 12: Expanding the Scope of Fundamental Rights

🔷 I. Introduction

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the term “State” for the purpose of Part III (Fundamental Rights). It plays a pivotal role in determining against whom fundamental rights can be enforced. Without Article 12, it would be unclear which entities are bound by these rights.

🔷 II. Text of Article 12

Article 12: “In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘the State’ includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.”

🟢 Key Expressions:

  • Government and Parliament of India (Union)
  • Government and Legislature of States
  • Local Authorities (e.g., municipalities, panchayats)
  • Other Authorities (the most litigated and evolving expression)

🔷 III. Importance of Article 12

  • Article 12 determines the applicability of Fundamental Rights.
  • If an entity is considered “State” under Article 12, its actions can be challenged for violating fundamental rights.
  • It extends the accountability of the State to quasi-governmental or public functionaries.

🔷 IV. Interpretation and Expansion through Judicial Decisions

The phrase “other authorities” has been interpreted expansively by Indian courts to include various governmental and non-governmental bodies.

✅ 1. Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857

Significance:
First landmark case interpreting “other authorities”.

Held:
Authorities like the Rajasthan Electricity Board, though not directly under the government, were performing public functions under a statute and therefore were “State” under Article 12.

🟢 Principle:
A body need not be a department of government but if:

  • It is created by statute, and
  • Has powers to make rules or regulations having the force of law,
    → It is “State”.

✅ 2. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331

Facts:
Issue was whether statutory corporations like ONGC, LIC, and IFC were “State”.

Held:
Yes, these corporations are “State” because they:

  • Were created by Acts of Parliament,
  • Discharge public functions, and
  • Have monopolistic powers.

🟢 Justice Mathew’s Observations:
Even a private body performing public duty or receiving financial aid can be “State”.

✅ 3. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628

Facts:
A tender was denied arbitrarily.

Held:
International Airport Authority is “State” under Article 12. It is functionally, financially, and administratively controlled by the government.

🟢 Key Test Introduced:

  • Functional test: If the body is instrumentality or agency of the government, it is “State”.

🧠 Impact:
Expanded Article 12 to include:

  • Bodies controlled by the government,
  • Discharging public duties,
  • Even if incorporated under private law.

✅ 4. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487

Facts:
Issue was whether a government-aided society (educational institution) was “State”.

Held:
Yes. Even a registered society can be “State” if it:

  • Is funded by the government,
  • Government controls its policy and functioning.

🟢 Key Contribution:
Laid down instrumentality and agency tests:

  • Financial resources from State
  • Deep and pervasive State control
  • Discharge of public functions
  • Monopoly status

✅ 5. Zee Telefilms v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 2677

Facts:
Whether BCCI is “State” under Article 12.

Held (5-judge bench):
No. BCCI is not “State” because:

  • It is a private autonomous body,
  • Not substantially funded or controlled by the government.

🟥 Limitation:
Even though BCCI performs public functions, it is not under deep or pervasive control.

🟡 Dissent:
Justice Sinha argued that public functions test should be enough to bring BCCI under Article 12.

🔷 V. Tests Developed by the Judiciary

The following tests determine whether a body is a “State” under Article 12:

Test TypeDescription
Ownership TestIs the entity owned by the government?
Financial Aid TestDoes it receive substantial government funding?
Control TestIs there deep and pervasive control by the government?
Functional TestDoes the entity perform public functions?
Agency TestIs it acting as a government instrumentality or agency?

🔷 VI. Expansion of Fundamental Rights

Thanks to the liberal interpretation of Article 12:

  • Fundamental rights are enforceable not only against traditional government departments, but also against:
  • Statutory corporations
  • Government-funded educational institutions
  • Government-controlled societies and companies

🔹 Example:

  • Right to equality (Article 14) can now be enforced against a government-funded university that discriminates in admission.
  • Right to life (Article 21) can be invoked against government hospitals for medical negligence.

🔷 VII. Limitations of Article 12 Interpretation

While the courts have expanded the meaning, there are practical limitations:

  1. Private entities performing public functions (like private schools or hospitals) often escape liability unless they are funded or controlled by the State.
  2. Zee Telefilms showed that mere public function is not enough.
  3. Evolving sectors like digital platforms and sports bodies often operate in a grey zone.

🔷 VIII. Critical Viewpoint

  • Positive Contribution:
  • Courts have elevated accountability by including PSUs, educational bodies, and statutory boards.
  • It ensures access to justice for individuals affected by administrative arbitrariness.
  • Criticism:
  • Despite expansion, some bodies performing essential services (e.g., private power companies, schools) are outside Article 12, limiting enforcement of fundamental rights.
  • The criteria are sometimes inconsistently applied, leading to confusion in lower courts.

🔷 IX. Suggestions for Reform

  1. Codify judicial tests into legislation to remove ambiguity.
  2. Expand the definition to include private bodies discharging public functions.
  3. Establish a constitutional watchdog to oversee entities performing public duties.

🔷 X. Conclusion

Article 12 is the gateway to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Over decades, the judiciary has played a progressive role in interpreting it to ensure State accountability. However, new governance structures and privatization demand a revisit of its scope to ensure that citizens’ rights are protected against all entities that affect public interest.

Scroll to Top