Talk:Indian nationality law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Disputed NPOV and Uncited information
This seems not to be an NPOV article because it's uncited opinion on how one person wants the law to be interpreted. For example, please cite the following information: "Again, this rule applies even if the foreign passport was obtained for the child by his or her parents, and even if possession of such a passport is required by the laws of a foreign country which considers the child to be one of its citizens (e.g., a U.S.-born child of Indian parents who is automatically deemed to be a U.S. citizen according to U.S. law, and who is therefore required by U.S. law to have a U.S. passport in order to travel abroad)." A legal citizen of a nation loses their citizenship if they comply with the laws of another nation? Surely the Indian government is not so inept as to allow this to be how the law works? Arch7 (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV Status
I disagree about the NPOV status and a slant towards British nationality law. Nationality laws are primarily concerned with one's membership in one nation as opposed to others. Since India, in the relatively recent past (at least generationally), was part of the British Empire, obviously and necessarily issues regarding British citizenship would be important in a practical and a intellectual sense. One can look at the history of United States of America after independence and how the British Navy treated naturalized American citizens formerly British subjects. Nationality laws in Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, etceteras are also obviously and necessarily going to touch on British Nationality Law. I do not agree that the section is not neutral, I do agree it does not have the formal tone of an encyclopedia. It would not be neutral if it didn't discuss these issues, and simply gave the governments' of UK and India respective views and policies. Those must also be given, but not looking broadly at all aspects of the issue from a neutral perspective is not encyclopaedic. It's like discussing the Iraq War only from the current American government's point of view. That's hardly neutral. Certainly the article needs to be cleaned up as a whole, whilst retaining all the great information provided and also a more formal tone would be preferred.
I think this article is about Indian nationatilty law and not British citizenship. As it is this article is very heavily weighted towards loss of British citizenship. Finally the section on "Unexamined issues in the current debates, dialogues, and narratives of Indian citizenship" doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. The issues need to be discussed but this section is too POV right now.--82.60.40.15 13:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If that is so, please enlighten me what the position is as you see it? (even if wholly dependent on that link, I am not clear how you read that page)
Automatic loss of British subject status makes the position pretty clear!
I think you have confused legislation and enacted law or legislation that enters into force as law. This is important because law is only effective after it has been enacted. A person could be a British Subject prior to 1981, and in fact, no one is entitled to a British passport except--let me quote a wikipedia article,
"No British national has a legal right to be issued a British passport, except for British Nationals (Overseas) who have an entitlement to hold a British passport under article 4(2) of the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986. All other British passports are therefore issued at the discretion of the Home Secretary under the Royal Prerogative, with the exception of those held by British Nationals (Overseas)."
So even British citizens are not entitled to British passports. And also, regardless of British Nationality Act, 1981, a British Subject could prior to 1 January 1983 (when the act came into force) with Indian Citizenship could apply for a British passport as a British Subject. Furthermore, British Nationality Act, 1981 states,
"35 Circumstances in which British subjects are to lose that status
A person who under this Act is a British subject otherwise than by virtue of section 31 shall cease to be such a subject if, in whatever circumstances and whether under this Act or otherwise, he acquires any other citizenship or nationality whatever."
It does not state that if one acquires a foreign passport that person shall cease to be a subject. Please provide information as to where British law definitively uses the acquisition of a passport as evidence of acquisition of foreign citizenship or nationality.
Furthermore, a person may receive a foreign passport, ie. an Indian passport, and held British Subject status prior to the commencement of Indian nationality. "Persons domiciled in the territory of India as on 26 November 1949 automatically became Indian citizens by virtue of operation of the relevant provisions of the Indian Constitition coming into force (the majority of the constitutional provisions came into force on 26 January 1950)." These people did not acquire foreign (Indian) citizenship while British subjects. They have foreign (Indian) citizenship by automatic operation of different laws of a sovereign nation (India). The British Nationals--the British Subjects--could claim that they should not lose their British nationality because otherwise any nation could claim the nationality of a British national. For example, the French could claim all British Subjects from Channel Islands as French nationals. Would they lose British nationality simply by a French declaration?
This can be and is a very contentious issue. Recall that one of the issues that led to the War of 1815 between Great Britain and the United States of America. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, particularly after the American Revolution and French Revolution, the Royal Navy aggressively reclaimed British deserters on board ships of other nations, both by halting and searching merchant ships, and in many cases, by searching American port cities. The Royal Navy did not recognize naturalized American citizenship, treating anyone born a British subject as "British" — as a result, the Royal Navy impressed over 6,000 sailors during the early 1800s who were claimed as American citizens as well as British subjects. This was one of several factors leading to the War of 1812 in North America. Also recall the plight of ethnic Indians in post-colonial East Africa and their British nationality, or British nationals from Hong Kong.
Immigration & Nationality Directorate of the Home Office states,
"Loss of British subject status
8. If you are a British subject, and you get any other citizenship or nationality after [italicized for emphasis] 1 January 1983, you will no longer be a British subject unless you used to be a citizen of Eire and have made a claim to remain a British subject under section 2 of the British Nationality Act 1948 (see paragraph 2) or under the 1981 Act (see paragraph 3)."
So presumably if you get any other citizenship or nationality before January 1983 than you may still be able to claim status as a British subject after January 1983. (With the caveat, that the above info was given: The law covering British subject status is in the British Nationality Act 1981 and the Regulations made under it. The information given here is only a brief guide to the law and the Home Secretary's policy. It is not a complete statement of either the law or policy.)
If rule 3 is in effect, then why is it missing from 1956 Citizenship Rules? At least, it is missing on the Indian government's current pdf of the rules.
"The Citizenship Rules, 1956
(As amended upto 20-4-2000)
The Citizenship Rules, 19561
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 18 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules namely: -
...
PART V SUPPLEMENTAL
...
30. Authority to determine acquisition of citizenship of another country. –(1) If any question arises as to whether, when or how any person had acquired the citizenship of another country, the authority to determine such question shall, for the purpose of section 9(2), is the Central Government. (2) The Central Government shall in determining any such question have due regard to the rules of evidence specified in Schedule III.
...
SCHEDULE III
[See rule 30(2)]
1. Where it appears to the Central Government that a citizen of India has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any other country, it may require him to prove within such period as may be fixed by it in this behalf, that he has not voluntarily acquired the Citizenship of that country; and the burden of proving that he has not so acquired such citizenship shall be on him.
2. For the purpose of determining any question relating to the acquisition of an Indian citizen or the citizenship of any other country, the Central Government may make such reference as it thinks fit in respect of that question or of any matter relating thereto, to its Embassy in that country or to the Government of that country and act on any report or information received in pursuance of such reference.
3. A. Where a person, who has become an Indian Citizen by virtue of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Citizenship) Order, 1962, or the Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Citizenship) Order 1962, issued under section 7 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955) holds a passport issued by the Government of any other country, the fact that he has not surrendered the said passport on or before the 19th January, 1963 shall be conclusive proof of his having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country before that date."
Clearly, Rule 3 as described in the article is missing from the Schedule and the Schedule is "amended upto 20-4-2000". ("The acquisition of another country's passport is also deemed under the Citizenship Rules, 1956 to be voluntary acquisition of another country’s nationality. Rule 3 of Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules, 1956 states that "the fact that a citizen of India has obtained on any date a passport from the Government of any other country shall be conclusive proof of his having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country before that date". It does not matter that a person continues to hold an Indian passport. Persons who acquire another citizenship lose Indian citizenship with from the date on which they acquire that citizenship or another country's passport.")
By this token, having a foreign passport does not mean the Central Government can use that to judge as evidence of voluntarily acquiring foreign citizenship and therefore deprive Indian citizens of their right to citizenship.
The fact that "their are numerous court judgements referring to it [sic]" does not mean that the law has not been amended to repeal Rule 3. Numerous American court judgments refer to the legal status of slavery. However, today in the U.S. slavery is legally abolished.
So it is important and useful information to know at what period rule 3 was in effect, if it ever was in effect. So the below writer is correct in bringing the issue up.
You have confused what is meant by ther term "British subject", which is very clearly defined in the British Nationality Act 1981. Only British subjects without citizenship are entitled to a British passport because the acquisition of a foreign passport will result in a British subject (under the British Nationality Act 1981) losing British subject status. See the British Nationality Act 1981 which states that "A person who under this Act is a British subject otherwise than by virtue of a connection as a former citizens of Eire shall cease to be such a subject if, in whatever circumstances and whether under this Act or otherwise, he acquires any other citizenship or nationality whatever." This provision only applies to British subjects and British protected persons. It does not apply to British citizens, British Overseas Territories citizens, British Overseas citizens or British Nationals (Overseas).
Lastly, Rule 3 of Schedule 3 of the 1956 Citizenship Rules is still in effect. It has never been repealed and their are numerous court judgements referring to it.
"Only a British subject without citizenship was entitled to a British passport." Please clarify the source for this. As I understand British Subjects with foreign citizenships could still hold a passport that specifically classified them as a British Subject still subject to immigration and visa controls to enter the U.K. They will have a British passport without the endorsement of right of abode. They do not have a legal right to a passport but are issued one at the discretion of the Home Secretary under the Royal Prerogative. And, this is actually true for almost all British nationals including British Citizens.
It should be cleared up during which time that rule 3 of Schedule 3 of the 1956 Citizenship Rules was in effect.
request guidence A.S.A.P thankyou very much for the e mail that one of u have sent me it was really nice and was very encouraging to know there is some one to help me out. well what i need to tell u is that i was born on 13/12/1980 in mumbai and i do have an indian birth certificate . but i want to know that my father was born in nepal but has now been staying in india for the past 36 years in one same building working and living there. has got bank passbook proving his existence in mumbai for the past 24 years and thathe has also got a letter from the society stating that he has been living there and working since the past 36 years has got voting rights the proof of that is the verfication receipt from the election commision as well we have got rationing card which proves our residence for the past 11 years . i want to know how can he get a nationality certifiacte . i want this because i want to apply for a passport the local police station has rejected my application stating that my father is from nepal allthough i m born and brought up in india he is stating that i m not an indian and m a nepali. sir i have also got a pan card. and would like to apply for a passport because i m applying for a scholarship to study abroad as i m a b.sc graduate . i have been harased a lot and i dont know what i should do now as my application has been rejected for the 2 time beacuse of my nationality issue. there is no one to help me as my dad is illeterate . even the passport people are saying that i can apply for a passport but they are helpless as they can issue one only after they get a police clearence the police report states that i havee no criminal frecord but the passport cannot be issued to me because of my nationality. sir i had taken a print out of the nationality law from the website on home ministry which clearly states that i m an indian citizen as well from the welkpedia website but he is not ready to accept that. kindly guide me through as to whome should i meet and how i should go about getting a nationality certificate for my dad and for my self. waiting for an early reply please mail me where i need to apply and how i need to do that and how long does it take kindly reply on my e mail id is gagangsingh@yahoo.co.in
[edit] PIO/OCI Articles
There's already a seperate Person of Indian Origin Card and Overseas Citizen of India Article. I guess all the corresponding parts of this arcticle should be sourced out to the specialised article. Especially since this article is already quite long... 84.57.68.48 22:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Loss of consular protection for OCI
The article claims that a person with OCI will lose consular protection of the country whose passport he holds while in India. I don't think this is factually correct. By granting OCI, India recognizes that the other country of citizenship is primary by stamping a visa in that country's passport. Indeed, the OCI holder is actually required to use the consular services of the other country - he must keep his passport valid and renew it from time to time. Has India ever claimed that OCI holders would lose consular protection? I know of no case in which they have. I believe that statement in the article should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.191.61 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
I edited this section to remove the unsubstantiated claim that a person with OCI will lose consular protection of the country whose passport he holds while in India.
[edit] Outline change
I took the freedom to re-structure the outline a bit... no change in content, just regrouped the items so that it is not just a list of headings.88.65.107.191 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Changes of "Clashes with other citizenship laws"
I feel the current text tries to be very generic, but this means that it is a bit difficult to understand the problem which is created: Certain children cannot permanently have the indian citizenship even though they should be able to because there are inconsitencies between the laws of different nations. Of course it is not possible to make the laws of all countries consistent with each other (it seems it is not possible to make the laws within ONE country consistent...), so the regulations should be more lenient for these few people who are in this very special situation. At least that's what i think. Back to the article: I tried to add some concrete examples in the text, but i feel i just made it more clumsy... If somebody wants to re-write it, maybe it would be better to concentrate on some concrete situations (e.g. the one in the US), and not try to make it overly generic.194.138.39.59 14:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The complete Law
I searched the net up and down to find a complete edition of the citizenship act and citizenship rules, including the amendments. It seems something like this is not available, only fragments or just the amendments. The closest i came about are the following items:
The Law up to the amendment of 2003: [1]
Together with the amendment of 2005 this gives the complete law (note that this amendment is mainly cosmetic, for all practical purposes the above pdf will do). Then i found the following issues of the gazette of Pondicherry, publishing changes in the citizenship rules: [2] [3] These links also include prescribed forms and fees.
Right now the article links to fragments of the law from all kinds of sites, maybe this could be somehow consolidated (e.g. with the above links). Maybe i'll write a extra article about the citizenship rules someday. 84.57.89.116 21:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jammu and Kashmir
Since (as I understand) the status of Jammu and Kashmir is in dispute, I could easily imagine a theoretical possibility that there could be a tug-of-war over the citizenship status of the residents of this area — i.e., a situation where both India and Pakistan might be claiming some or all JK residents as citizens, each country taking its position without regard for the citizenship laws or policies of the other country (e.g., despite India's firm refusal to tolerate dual citizenship). Does any such conflict in fact exist? Does the plausibility of this question justify the inclusion of any material on the status of JK, even if only to explain that there isn't any conflict? Richwales 15:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
