TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Government is a grant of privilege in exercise of its sovereign power. There is no definition of the expression ‘good character’ in the Citizenship Act. Undoubtedly, the Central Government has wide discretion in setting the standards for its satisfaction as to the good character requirement. However, the expression must be understood in the context of the statute. The standards to qualify the good character requirement must be reasonable and as expected of a good and responsible citizen espousing the values engrafted in the Constitution of this country. The impugned order does indicate sufficient reason why the petitioner’s application for naturalisation has been rejected. It is clear that the Central Government is not satisfied that the petitioner qualifies the good character requirement - this is a subjective decision and the Central Government (and not this Court) is required to be satisfied that the petitioner is qualified for naturalisation under the provisions of the Third Schedule of the Citizenship Act. This decision cannot be subjected to judicial review except on limited grounds. The said decision cannot be held to be arbitrary, capricious or whimsical and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sa that was valid till 01.08.1998. She again entered into India on 12.10.1998, on a visa which was valid till 06.10.1999. Subsequent thereto, she entered India on a tourist visa on 29.09.2000, which was valid till 02.06.2002. Thereafter, she had travelled to India on a Business Visa, which was valid till 18.11.2009 but was thereafter extended till 18.12.2013. 6. On 17.03.2011, the petitioner filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Citizenship Act for acquiring citizenship by naturalisation. While the said application was pending, the petitioner also applied for extension of permission to stay in India. The said application (dated 17.03.2011) was rejected by the District Magistrate (North), Goa by an order dated 05.06.2014, principally, on the ground that the petitioner was suspected to be indulging in drug trade. The petitioner filed a revision application before the Central Government under Section 15 of the Citizenship Act impugning the decision of the District Magistrate rejecting her application for citizenship. The said revision petition was also dismissed by an order dated 26.02.2015. 7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 26.02.2015, the petitioner filed a writ pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1896/2018) challenging the order dismissing her review application. The same was disposed of by an order dated 27.02.2018, inter alia, remanding the matter to the concerned authority with a direction to hear the petitioner and to decide the review application afresh. 14. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner was afforded a hearing on 05.04.2018 and was also permitted to produce documentary evidence. The petitioner availed of the said opportunity and was heard through her counsel. 15. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner s application for review of the order dated 28.09.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed the present petition. Reasons and Conclusion 16. As noticed above, the principal reason for rejecting the petitioner s application for citizenship stems from an allegation that she was involved in trafficking of drugs. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the said allegation is wholly unfounded, as the petitioner had been acquitted of such allegations. 18. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to briefly indicate the reasons that have led the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs of Hashish is a large consignment. The petitioner has not been convicted as her involvement in the crime was not established beyond reasonable doubt; however that does not mean that the concerned authority is precluded from considering the same while evaluating whether the petitioner qualifies for naturalisation. 23. Although the petitioner was acquitted, it cannot be disputed that there were good grounds to suspect the petitioner for commission of the said offence. 24. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to Section 6(1) of the Citizenship Act, which reads as under: 6. Citizenship by naturalisation.―(1) Where an application is made in the prescribed manner by any person of full age and capacity [not being an illegal migrant] for the grant of a certificate of naturalisation to him, the Central Government may, if satisfied that the applicant is qualified for naturalisation under the provisions of the Third Schedule, grant to him a certificate of naturalisation: Provided that, if in the opinion of the Central Government, the applicant is a person who has rendered distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s good reason not to be satisfied, she is bound to refuse naturalisation. For these reasons too a decision in one context is not binding in the other. 29. Similarly, Section 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 vests absolute discretion with the Minister to grant an application for naturalisation, if satisfied that the applicant is of a good character. 30. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the onus to establish that the applicant qualifies the test of a good character rests with the applicant and not the Central Government. 31. There is no definition of the expression good character in the Citizenship Act. Undoubtedly, the Central Government has wide discretion in setting the standards for its satisfaction as to the good character requirement. However, the expression must be understood in the context of the statute. The standards to qualify the good character requirement must be reasonable and as expected of a good and responsible citizen espousing the values engrafted in the Constitution of this country. 32. In R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex p Al Fayed (No.2):[2001] Imm AR 134, Nourse LJ explained the tests to be applied fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2007) and the report of the Collector District Magistrate (North), Panji, Goa also the report of the State Government of Goa, it Is noted that though the petitioner has been acquitted by the Court of Law in the Criminal proceedings started under NDPS Act, 2005, but it cannot be denied that she had got benefit of the failure on the part of prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt which Is a fundamental requirement to prove criminality in a criminal proceeding. Such an acquittal of the petitioner on technical grounds does not erase the fact that the contraband substance was found in the bag she was carrying, which was squarely admitted by her during the process of inquiry at the airport on the 6th/7th March, 2007. Further, the reports and the recommendations of the District Collector State Government are an important document/input to consider the application of a person seeking Indian citizenship. No foreigner has a right to be granted Indian nationality simply on the basis of his/her continuous stay in India or supposed good behavior. The Competent Authority has to see whether the applicant foreigner would make a good, law-abiding citizen and would not be a th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
