JOIN WITH US

Saturday, January 30, 2010

CANCELLATION OF INDIAN CITIZENSHIP GRANTED TO FOREIGN NEPALIS WHO ARE ORIGINALLY CITIZENS OF NEPAL AFTER 1950



Taking up a petition on granting of Indian citizenship to people of Nepal residing in India post January 26, 1950, the Calcutta High Court today directed the Centre to state its position on the matter through an affidavit.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M S Shah and Justice Bhaskar Bhattcharya directed the Centre, Election Commission of India, secretary to the Ministry of External Affairs, the West Bengal government and others to file affidavits within four weeks, after which the case would be taken up for hearing.
The direction was passed in response to a PIL filed by Siliguri-based organisation ‘Janachetana’ demanding cancellation of Indian citizenship granted to Gorkhas, who are originally citizens of Nepal, after January 26, 1950.
Petitioner’s counsel Sakya Sen told court that there were two treaties — Britain India Nepal Tripartite Agreement of 1947 and Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950 — which stated that Nepalese citizens would enjoy many rights in India if they reside here but would remain citizens of that country in a reciprocal arrangement.
He also said a gazette notification of August 23, 1988, by the Centre had sought to clarify misconceptions regarding citizenship of Gorkhas stating that those who came to India before January 26, 1950, could claim citizenship of the country. Those who came after that date would remain citizens of Nepal. The petitioner claimed that there has been a large influx of Nepali citizens into India, mainly in Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri districts of West Bengal and that they had been “unlawfully” granted electoral rights here.
Sen submitted that there has been a sudden surge in the electoral rolls in these areas and alleged that the Election Commission of India and the State Election Commission had not properly verified the applications for inclusion in the electoral rolls. Admitting the petition, the Division Bench directed that the matter would be heard again on April 9.

No comments:

Post a Comment