Misrepresentation of facts no ground to deprive MLA of citizenship

Telangana High Court

Telangana High Court


Counsel for MLA Chennamaneni Ramesh argues before HC

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court single bench of Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy on Thursday late heard the writ petition filed by TRS legislator Chennamaneni Ramesh (Vemulavada) regarding his citizenship row.

His counsel Y Ramarao argued that the Central government's impugned order was passed not by the competent authority, but by the undersecretary, Ministry of Home Affairs.

In the show-cause notice, the ground which was taken by the MHA is the misrepresentation of facts by Ramesh is neither fraud nor concealment of any material, and also not placed.

The allegation against the MLA is that he had acquired Indian citizenship by furnishing false representation.

The Section 17 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, clearly mentions that any person who for the purpose of procuring anything to be done or not to be done under the Act, knowingly makes any representation which is false in a material particularly shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to Rs.50,000.

Section 10(2)(A) of the Act mentions that the registration or certificate of naturalisation was ob¬tained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact; this is the penal provision under the Act. Sec 10 (2) A and Section 17 of the Act; it may not be initiated against Ramesh, the counsel asserted.

Therefore, Ramesh is called upon hereby to explain immediately that why action under Section 10 (2) (A) and 17 of the Act may not be initiated against him, the counsel stated.

The explanation must reach the Joint Secretary, MHA, in the event of failure to furnish the aforesaid explanation in writing and the case may be decided later.

To the show-cause notice, Ramesh specifically filed an explanation stating that the two grounds which are made that the continuous period of 12 months is only as an ordinary residence is sufficient. Further, his hiring a residence and house number was there and a company was established in the name of Sangeeta Chennamaneni; he is an ordinary resident of this country for a period of 12 months.

Therefore, Ramesh lived in this country for a period of 12 months, for he said yes citizen of this country. The second question by the Centre is has he visited any country abroad.

Ramesh replied that as on that date no citizenship was given and he was a citizen of Germany, that is the reason he said, he did not visit any country.

That has been replied to the Centre; this has been alleged as misrepresentation of facts. That was the reason, the government issued a show-cause notice to Ramesh, the counsel informed the court.

Further, he argued that in the explanation that the government must exercise power under Section 10 (3) of the Act, which this section contemplates that even in any misrepresentation of facts or any fraud takes place, the government must satisfy itself that continuation of citizenship of the country shall not be conducive to public good.

Justice Reddy queried that, according to you, both conditions must be satisfied.

Section 10 (3) clearly mentions that the Centre shall not deprive a person of citizen¬ship. Under this section unless it is satisfied that it is not conducive to public good that the person should continue to be a citizen of India, the counsel quoted.

The MLA's intention is very clear; unequivocally a sub-section has been incorporated stating that under this section any grounds even if you are satisfied, only recourse is under Section 17 you can impose a maximum fine of Rs 50,000 or you must also satisfy that my continuation of citizen of this country shall not be conducive to people.

Moreover, after obtaining the citizenship have not involved in any issue which is affecting the national integration and has not caused any damage to the national security personally or by any other means, the counsel stated.

Justice Reddy queried whether on the date of grant of Indian citizenship, was he an MLA?

Counsel replied that he was not; moreover, after registration of Indian citizenship, he was not involved in any criminal activities, particularly for deprivation grounds of satisfaction of the government. The Centre cannot be taken as a ground for misrepresentation of fact that not conducive to people. Just for misrepresentation you may repose another section i.e., Section 17 or any other Act, the counsel said.

In the government order that Ramesh being an MLA he must be idealistic person to people and for the State.

Had he revealed the fact that he has not resided in India for one year before making the citizenship application, the competent authority in the MHA, could not grant citizenship to him, the counsel argued.

Rao averred that it's absolutely contradictory to the spirit of the country that the impugned order which was given by the government is liable to set aside or quashed. For further hearing, the case was adjourned.

Four Judges, two Add'l

Judges appointed

The President of India Droupadi Murmu appointed four new Judges and two additional Judges to the Telangana High Court on Friday. Enugula Venkata Venugopal, Nagesh Bheemapaka, Pulla Karthik and Kaja Sarath will be the Judges of the High Court of Telangana, in that order of seniority, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices. The two Additional Judges are Jaggannagari Sreenivas Rao and Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao in that order of seniority, for a period of two years, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices. A notification has been issued in this regard.

Show Full Article
Print Article
Next Story
More Stories