Article 10 of The Indian Constitution


Article 10: Continuance of The Rights of Citizenship:
Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions of this Part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen. Any person who, under any of the foregoing provisions of this act, is or is deemed to be a citizen of India shall continue to be such a citizen, subject to the provisions of any law that Parliament may pass. A person born in India after 26 January 1950 would-be a citizen of India except those of children of diplomats and enemy aliens can not be a citizen of India by birth. Any person born after 26 January 1950 would-be a citizen of India subject to other requirements, such as a parent (mother or father) being a citizen of India.

Citizenship issues play a vital role in a democratic nation-state and so citizenship is a basic aspect in a democratic polity. Any person who is a citizen of india under any law of this provision shall be liable to any law enacted by the Parliament. Article 10 specifies that someone who fits the concept of a citizen pursuant to Part federal constitution is or will continue to be a citizen unless the Parliament makes a law removing the citizenship of such a person. If any territory becomes a part of India, the Central Government may, by order notified in the Official Gazette, specify the persons who are to be citizens of India because of their relation with that territory; and such persons shall be citizens of India as from the date stated in the order. Where a full-age and competent Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder makes a prescribed declaration renouncing the Card registering him as an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder, the declaration shall be registered by the Central Government, and that person shall cease to be an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder upon registration thereof.

•Any citizen of India who by applying for citizenship, registration or voluntarily acquires or has voluntarily acquired citizenship of another country at any time between 26 January 1950 and the commencement of this Act , shall cease to be a citizen of India upon such acquisition or, as the case may be, such commencement: provided that nothing in this sub-section refers to a citize.
•If any question arises as to whether, when or how any [Indian citizen] has obtained another country’s citizenship, the authority shall assess it in such manner and in the light of such rules of proof as may be prescribed on this behalf.

•Unless it is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that individual should continue to be a citizen of India, the Central Government shall not deprive an individual of nationality under this clause.
•On such a reference, the Committee of Inquiry shall conduct the inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed and send its report to the Central Government; and such report shall normally direct the Central Government in making an order under this section.
•Through order, the Central Government may direct that any power conferred upon it by any of the provisions of this Act other than those of section 10 which, in certain circumstances and under such conditions, may be exercised also by such officer or authority as may be stated in the order.
•The person has been ordinarily resident in India for a continuous span of seven years and has not at any time been a student of any educational institution in a country outside India or serving a government in India or an international organization of which India is a member, not registered annually in the specified manner with an Indian consulate .
•The person has, during any war in which India is capable of participating, unlawfully trading or interacting with, or participating in, or associating with, any business carried on in such a manner as to assist an enemy in that war .
The person to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted under subsection ( 1 ) shall be a citizen of India by naturalization from the date on which the certificate is granted in the form stated in the Second Schedule .Where a citizen of India of full age and ability makes a declaration renouncing his Indian Citizenship in the prescribed manner, that declaration shall be registered by the prescribed authority; and, upon such registration, that person shall cease to be a citizen of India, provided that such declaration is made during any war in which India may be engaged and registered.Where [a person]ceases to be a citizen of India under subsection ( 1), any minor child of that person shall consequently cease to be a citizen of India, provided that any such child may make a declaration [in the designated form and manner]within one year of full age that he wishes to resume Indian citizenship and afterwards become a citizen of India again. Any person who deliberately makes any representation that is false in a particular material for the purpose of procuring something that should be done or not to be done under this Act shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period of up to 1[five years], or 2[with a fine of up to fifty thousand rupees], or both.

Also Read:  Dr. Vivek Bindra Wins the Defamation Case Against Doctor’s Complaint

A case study related to the following Article is as follows:
Bombay High Court
Maharashtra Power Development v. Dabhol Power Company And Ors. on 2 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 117 CompCas 467 CLB, (2003) 4 CompLJ 429 CLB, 2003 48 SCL 135 CLB
Bench: S Balasubramanian

ORDER S. Balasubramanian, Vice Chairman
The first respondent, Dabhol Power Company (the company), was sponsored by Enron Development Corporation, USA (Enron) General Electric Group, USA (GE) and Bechtel Enterprises, Inc (Bechtel) and was incorporated as an unlimited liability private company in April 1993 for the purpose of constructing a 2000 MW power plant in Maharashtra State, to be installed in two phases. The company’s authorized capital is 3,862.65 crores in Rupees. Table E of the Corporations Act (which itself adopts Table A with omission of some Table A Regulations) has been adopted by the Corporation as its Articles of Association in so far as matters not expressly inserted into the Documents. The above-mentioned three companies have incorporated three subsidiaries in Mauritius, and they hold shares in the company.

All seven EMC candidates resigned as Directors in March 2002. The two IDBI and ICICI candidates both withdrew from the Business Board approximately 5 April 2002. The company thus had only three members, namely the second respondent nominated by EEC, the third respondent nominated by CIPM and one Mr. Ravi Budhiraja nominated by the petitioner, on 5thApril 2002. Mr. Budhiraja also withdrew from the Board on 2ndMay 2002. As on 2ndMay, therefore, the Board consisted of just two directors, namely the second and third respondents. The quorum for Board meetings is 3 directors according to the company’s Articles. However, a board meeting was held in San Francisco, USA, on 4thJune 2002, with just two members, Mr. Donold C. Stummer, the second respondent, and Mr. richard Allison, the third respondent. During that meeting the candidate Mr. Allison was replaced by Mr. Kevin P Walsh, the fourth respondent, during response to a motion from CIPM. Additionally, one Mr. Peter C Freeman was appointed to hold office as a director until the next Annual General Meeting.

The petitioner had proposed the names of two nominees while each nominated one of the other two shareholders. Furthermore, these two shareholders also jointly proposed Mr. Freeman ‘s name for appointment as their regular director. IDBI has named its own candidate as well. Mr. Stummer and Mr. Walsh were named as EEMC and CIPM candidates in that conference, respectively. Mr. Freeman was elected by plurality vote, and the petitioner’s delegate voted against. The petitioner’s nomination of two candidates was objected by the other three shareholders on the basis that the petitioner owning 14.15 percent shares was entitled to select only one director in terms of the Papers. With respect to Mr. Freeman’s nomination, it was correctly acknowledged during the hearing by the respondents’ lawyers that his selection had been recommended only because EMC had agreed not to recommend any applicant and that the petitioner had not specified his choice and thus, in order to insure that there would be a quorum for board meetings, Mr. Freeman’s name had been suggested. The problem now is that Mr. Freeman should have been appointed in spite of the petitioner’s position that, in terms of the Papers, no non-shareholder director other than FI nominations should be named.

With regard to the appointment of respondents 6-9 by EMC as its nominees to the company’s board, the petitioner raised various issues-that, with a view to hijacking the company, GE and Bechtel produced those appointments that were also made by their own employees, that it was done in the case of subjugation before the Bombay High Court and the CLB, that these respondents did not reply.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order to cost.


Leave A Reply

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Signup for our newsletter and get notified when we publish new articles for free!