On 14Apr2004, the Election Commission debarred one Mr Jayant Singh, a grandson of a former PM Choudhary Charan Singh, from contesting in an Assembly election. Now the said person is a bon-a-fide Indian of several generations. Then how come the EC debarred him. Please do not be annoyed or affronted. The document, please note the term, called ‘The Constitution of India’ in its Part II, which bears the heading ‘CITIZENSHIP’, contains Art9 which states “Persons who voluntarily obtain citizenship of a foreign state are not to be citizen.” So the EC was well within its rights debarring Mr Singh because he was holding a British passport..
The same EC when asked by the apex Court to comment on the status of the foreigners who have taken up citizenship of India, said this. “It is respectfully submitted that the EC has no comment to offer on this Constitutional question as it does not pertain to conduct of elections or disqualification of candidates.” For a detailed account of the affidavit, kindly refer TOI dated 05Aug2007.
What is the conclusion from the foregoing? It is this. Because the Constitution of India does not contain the word ‘Indian’ anywhere in its text or title, it means that Indians do not exist, at least in India. Nor do they have any Nationality or unique identity. They are, as the preamble asserts merely the people of India on whom this supreme statute has mercifully conferred ‘citizenship’ of India by inserting Part II to remove any confusion arising due to Partition of the country. And if there was any doubt about how wretched the local populace was in the eyes of the writers of the Constitution, the disabling provision in Art58 (1) (a) removes that too. The article lays down the QRs for the President of India. The relevant portion reads: 58(1) No person shall be eligible for election as President, unless (a) He is a citizen of India.
One would presume that this Qualification Rating will be applicable to other elected posts like MP and MLA too. So the EC and our top Constitutional lawyers have been telling us for last 11 years that only Indians can be debarred from contesting as provided for in Art9 read along with Art58 (1)(a). Please note that only ‘those people of India’, who had moved to or remained in Pakistan after a certain date, did not construe ‘citizens of India’. Please also note that all kinds of citizens of India found in Part II of the Constitution would stand to be disqualified by virtue of Art9. The EC also assumes that ‘The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955’ is an infructuous statute, enacted merely to fulfill the requirement of Art11. But in this assumption the EC has breached every Indians fundamental right to equality, by not extending the same courtesy to an Italian person as would be to an Indian on his becoming a citizen of Italy in Italy. There, he would not be allowed to even contest a Municipal election.
It is amazing that the Bar Council of India with a million plus lawyers on its roll, so vehemently opposed to entry of foreign law firms and lawyers, has had nothing to say on the question of foreigners becoming MP for all these years. Even when the above facts were appraised to the Senior Advocate representing Rashtriya Mukti Morcha in the Supreme Court, all he had to say was” the inputs given are all in public knowledge.”
The petition filed in early 2007 is still pending.--Raju Bhartiya