Continuous Internal Assessment 2 Constitutional Law

Name:

Roll No:

A. In 1925 Margha, a citizen of France, went through a bitter division of family property in Paris, where
she had lived since she was a child. Estranged from her siblings and her parents, Margha rented out
the property that fell in her share, vowed to never return to Paris and decided to move to
Pondicherry, India. Now in Pondicherry since 1925, Margha quickly fell in love, married an Indian
man Chander, rented a home, raised two children and became a local farmer. Margha would make
trips to Paris only when the tenants of her Paris property would change in order to take care of
necessary paperwork.

Once India became independent and adopted its own Constitution, Margha decided to apply for
citizenship in June, 1951. In the middle of the process, she received several letters from her siblings
urging her to reconcile with the family and promising a reallocation of property. Moved by this,
Margha travels to Paris to meet with her family. Unfortunately for her, after spending two months in
Paris, the reconciliation fails. Margha returns to Pondicherry and makes her representation for
citizenship in June, 1953.

Decide under what grounds the application for citizenship is made and whether you would accept or
deny her citizenship.

ANSWER:

Note: This need not be your interpretation, you will not be marked down for having an opinion different
from mine.

__________________________________________________________________________________

The central issue in this case is Margha’s eligibility for Indian citizenship under the Constitution of India
1950. Since Margha’s application was made in 1953, the Citizenship Act, which was enacted in 1955 will
not apply. According to established case law and principles, in my opinion Margha is not entitled to
citizenship of India.

Margha’s application is under Article 5(c) which deals with citizenship at the commencement of the
Constitution. According to 5(c) for a person to claim citizenship, they must have (i) their domicile in India
and (ii) ordinarily resident in India for 5 years immediately preceding the commencement of the
Constitution.

Residence need not be continuous (Louis Readt, Ram Narain). Margha has been living in India since
1925, and only occasionally returns to Paris for her tenants. Similarly, her visit to Paris for two months in
1951 will also not disturb the factum of her residence. She therefore meets the requirement of residency.

Domicile is the relationship between an individual and a territory where the legal system of the territory
becomes the personal law of the individual. Domicile may be of origin or of choice. (Louis Readt, Ram
Narain) Margha’s domicile of origin is France. The question is whether she has chosen the domicile of
India and abandoned that of France.

Mere movement from one’s country to another does not supply the animus manendi required to adopt a
new domicile (RN, LR, Kulathil Mammu, though in the context of Article 7). It is necessary to
Continuous Internal Assessment 2 Constitutional Law

consciously abandon one’s domicile of origin with the intention of choosing a new one (Louis Readt, Ram
Narain). There are three circumstances to look at:

(a) Margha left Paris after a bitter fight with her family.
(b) Margha lives, works, has children and is married to an Indian
(c) Margha went to Paris in the hopes of a reconciliation.
(d) Reconciliation fails and Margha returns.

In my opinion, Margha does not have domicile in India. Though Margha has certain factors that tie her to
India such as her family and her job (Narain Bikram Singh) and made her application diligently,
(distinguishing Louis Readt), Margha’s initial intention to move to India was contingent on her family
feud. This shows clearly when she returns to Paris in the hope of reconciling and effectively abandons the
June 1951 application in the interim. This, according to me, is evidence that her application for Indian
citizenship is contingent on whether there is a reconciliation with her family or not. It is only because the
reconciliation fails that the June 1953 application was made (a similar principle was used in Louis Readt).
There is thus no intention to permanently reside in India, and therefore, no domicile. Margha’s
application must be rejected.