Citizenship Act, Sonia Gandhi & Dr. Subramaniam Swamy - Part 3

 Part 3 is being presented to deliberate on what possibly caused Sonia Gandhi to give up her claim to Prime Ministership. The question of Lacuna in our Citizenship Act 1955, Representation of People Act 1950 & 1951 apart, it does make me, and I believe many others, curious as to why then Sonia Gandhi, who remote controls the entire Govt., appointed herself Chief of NAC (which itself may be an extra-constitutional body in PMO) in order to interfere with the Governance & Law-making process of India, decided to not be the PM in 2004 or even in 2009? It is clear that Sonia Gandhi loves power. She freaks on it. But more than that she loves so much Power that she becomes unquestionable, unaccountable to People of India. So, as far as the Sacrifice Drama is concerned, it was clearly a fake drama, exposed by her behavior in later periods. Then, why did Sonia Gandhi not become the Prime Minister of India? This question cannot be answered without going back to May 2004. Things were moving slow as well as fast…it was a confusing period, caused especially by sudden death of NDA and a fairly indecisive vote of the people. So, while a lot of action & attempt at Govt formation was on, it wasn’t resulting into Govt formation. We’ll try to understand this from the chronology of events itself. Timeline of Events I have provided Link of the news wherever I could (it is primarily from Rediff.com & Press Information Bureau) Kindly do read the news on these links to know things yourself. April 20 & May 10, 2004 – General Elections were held May 11, 2004 – President Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam consults experts to understand plan of action in case of a Hung Parliament (which was looking evident). http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/11kalam.htm May 12, 2004 – Sonia Gandhi met Harkishan Singh Surjeet, General Secretary of CPI(M). Surjeet agreed to support Congress with a rider that Manmohan Singh will be the Prime Minister of India. The news can be accessed here: http://www.rediff.com/election/2004/may/12espec1.htm/ May 13, 2004 – Election results are announced. Congress and allies are ahead of NDA. Congress gets 145 seats and along with their pre-poll allies, number stands at 217. Congress + needed 55 more to form Govt. May 13, 2004 (9pm) – Sharad Pawar doesn’t seem n favor of Sonia Gandhi as PM. He had afterall, left Congress to form NCP primarily on grounds of Sonia’s foreign origins. Wily politician that he is, he neither says Yes, nor No… http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/13sp11.htm May 13, 2004 (10.30pm) – CPI(M) stalwart Jyoti Basu makes it clear that a non-BJP Govt at the Centre is a must. Direction for Left’s support is set, with matters of Prime Minister pending. http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/13basu.htm May 14, 2004 (12 noon) – Sharad Pawar is still undecided. Meets Sonia, but gives no commitment. Says all other partners will meet in a day or two to finalise Prime Minister. http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/14sonia.htm & http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/14pawar.htm May 14, 2004 (12 noon) – Left Parties are still “discussing” election verdict, while clear that they will support a non-BJP Govt. They meet Mulayam Singh Yadav & VP Singh to discuss the same. http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/14left.htm May 15, 2004 (12 noon) – Sonia Gandhi is elected as Congress CPP Leader. http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/15cpp.htm May 15, 2004 (1.30pm) – Left parties are still undecided on their form of participation in the Govt. Not clear on joining Sonia’s Govt: http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/15cpim.htm May 15, 2004 (3pm) – The wily Ahmed Patel states that half the allies of Congress have issued Letters of Support. This doesn’t mean post-poll allies like Left Parties, but pre-poll allies of Congress. While it is proved later, as we’ll see, that Congress had no Letter, two days after Election Result letters of support from only half of pre-poll allies does look worrying. http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/15half.htm May 16, 2004 (9pm) – Manmohan Singh briefs media saying all allies, including Left have given Green Signal to Sonia to form Govt. However, even two days letter, we shall see, they had no Letters of Support to show to President for staking claim on Govt formation. http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/16sonia2.htm May 17, 2004 (10.30pm) – EC Constitutes 14th Lok Sabha, and submits the notification to the President of India at Rashtrapati Bhavan. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=1716 & http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/17ec.htm May 17, 2004 (1.25pm) – Amar Singh of Samajwadi Party & Ajit Singh of Rashtriya Lok Dal meet President. Samajwadi Party submits Letter of Support for “Congress Party” and Rashtriya Lok Dal submits Letter of Support for Sonia Gandhi to President of India. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=1716 May 17, 2004 (4pm) – Uma Bharti meets President of India to register her Protest against Sonia Gandhi’s possible appointment as Prime Minister due to her Foreign Origin. Dr. Swamy also met President the same day. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=1716 & http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/17uma.htm May 17, 2004 (8.30pm) – President’s Secretariat issues Press Release mentioning above three events as well as issuance of a letter to Sonia Gandhi requesting her to meet the President either the same day or the next to discuss formation of the Govt. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=1716 May 17, 2004 (10pm) – Sonia Gandhi holds 2nd round of sudden talks with her allies. Rumors are rife that Dr. Manmohan Singh might be declared Prime Ministerial candidate. In its public posture, Congress & some of its allies deny this. In all possibilities, I think Sonia Gandhi was desperate to get Letters of Support for her meeting with Kalam the next day. http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/17sonia2.htm May 18, 2004 (12.15pm) – Sonia Gandhi meets President Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, along with Dr. Manmohan Singh for about 20 minutes. She has no Letters of Support to show to the President. Rather President informs her of the Letters of Support he had received from SP & RLD. Sonia tells President she’ll meet him again with the Letters on May 19, 2004. . http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=1719 & http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/18cong.htm May 18, 2004 (throughout the day) – Speculation is rife that Sonia Gandhi will step down and Manmohan Singh will be appointed Prime Minister. Allies drop all pretense and make it as clear. NCP issues a tongue in cheek statement that Leadership is Congress’ internal issue. http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/18ncp.htm , http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/18man.htm , http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/18yech.htm May 18, 2004 (6.30pm) – President Secretariat discloses that Sushma Swaraj & Govindacharya met the President to express their strong reservations about Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin and that she should not be sworn in as Prime Minister. He also makes it clear that he has “only” heard them. BSP members meet the President too with an issue based Letter of Support for new coalition Govt headed by Sonia Gandhi. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=1723 May 18, 2004 (around 8-8.30pm) – Sonia Gandhi, knowing that apart from verbal commitment, Letters of Support are not coming, decides to resign herself to save embarrassment, appoints Manmohan Singh as her replacement, for whom since May 12, other Parties were pressurizing Congress. Of course, the public drama is about Sacrifice, about higher values, so on and so forth. For many of us, after 5 -6 days of intense lobbying with other Parties for support, when a Person steps down, it is not called Sacrifice. Thanks for the Drama, aunty. http://m.rediff.com/election/2004/may/18sonia2.htm May 19, 2004 (around 5.30pm) – President’s Secretariat clarifies that all rumors about Citizenship Issue being discussed by President with Sonia Gandhi are false and that this matter didn’t even figure in the discussion. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=1730 May 19, 2004 – Various Leaders call on the President of India extending Letters of Support to UPA. All of a sudden, as Dr. Manmohan Singh’s name became formal, Letters of Support were pouting in without difficulty. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=1733 May 19, 2004 (Midnight) – President’s Secretariat issues Press Release informing about the meeting held with Dr. Manmohan Singh & Sonia Gandhi, who met the President this time “with” Letters of Support from various Parties. Upo satisfaction on Majority, President invites new CPP Leader, Dr. Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister of India. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=1734 This entire chronology makes it more or less clear that while Law didn’t have necessary provisions for stopping an Indian Citizen of foreign origin from voting, getting elected or becoming Prime Minister, the resistance of various Political Parties from accepting a Foreign origin Indian Citizen as Prime Minister, turned things around for better. These allies may not have been vocal, lest they be seen as allying with BJP, in order to get a non-BJP Govt without Sonia Gandhi, they do seem to have not issued Letters of Support to Sonia Gandhi, despite verbal assurances. Sonia’s Sacrifice Drama Of course it was all a drama. A person lobbying hard with various political parties to get their support to become Prime Minister of India for almost a week (May 12, 2004 - May 18, 2004) doesn’t suddenly become a saint and give-up the desire for the position. Only an inability to become the Prime Minister stopped Sonia Gandhi from becoming a Prime Minister. Sonia Gandhi in later years – Power without Accountability The fact that in later years Sonia Gandhi formed an NAC, appointed herself the Chief, started interfering with Policy making as well as Law making process of the Government, makes it amply clear that she was dying to be in power. But the inability in 2004, made this ambitious woman find the way to Power without Accountability. There couldn’t have been a bigger gain for Sonia Gandhi and bigger loss for India, than what is going on presently. Role of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Where did you find his role in this entire thing? I find none. Some people mistake that I have an agenda against Dr. Swamy. Some think it is due to my liking for Atal Behari Vajpayee (Dr. Swamy despises Vajpayee). They are wrong. That is all I can say. Lacuna in our Laws It is about removing all the clutter Dr. Swamy has created for self-goals, and letting the nation know that there is a Lacuna in our Laws with respect to appointment of Indian Citizens of Foreign-origin to the position of even a Prime Minister of the country. India will be in grave danger. Our geo-politics doesn’t give us the luxury of lax laws. Imagine if a Pakistani origin Citizens becomes Indian Citizen, votes in India, fights election in India or becomes Prime Minister of India, where could things go? Our Laws must be prudent and should account for all possibilities. For Dr. Swamy’s Frenzied Forces I wrote first on this subject on Jaunary 31, 2012. Its 5 months, and there is no serious, clear answers from Dr. Swamy or any of his frenzied supporters. If they believe their silence on facts and explanations will make their falsehood convert to Truth, I am sorry, that will not be the case. Dr. Swamy is known to encourage people to demand accountability from Sonia Gandhi, Atal Behari Vajpayee etc…I demand accountability from Dr. Swamy.

Citizenship Act, Sonia Gandhi & Dr. Subramanian Swamy - Part 2

 Since my last post explaining why Indians shouldn’t believe Citizenship Act 1955, either in the past or now, can stop Sonia Gandhi from assuming any high Constitutional Office in India, a lot of comments, war of words, counter-arguments, new perspectives as well as hard facts have emerged. Most of the conversation has been on Twitter. It was therefore natural that I must write a continuity piece to my post The Indian Citizenship Act, Sonia Gandhi & Dr. Subramanian Swamy - http://thinkers-pad.blogspot.in/2012/01/indian-citizenship-act-sonia-gandhi-dr.html Since it is purely an academic exercise, we’ll delve only into new perspectives raised by those who have followed Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s supporters as well as certain new irrefutable facts that have emerged. Additional Perspectives 1. That Sonia Gandhi received her citizenship on 30th April 1983, whereas, certain amendments to Section 5(1)(c), under which she received her Citizenship came in 1986, effected in 1987. Therefore, her Citizenship is null & void. 2. The Reciprocity Clause applied to entire Section 5 of Citizenship Act 1955, which was deleted in Citizenship Amendment Act 2003 by the NDA Govt. and that the said Amendment Act was carried out in a hurry. 3. That Citizenship Amendment Act 2003 itself is invalid as the Omission of Reciprocity clause had not been mentioned in the Statement of Objects & Reasons. 4. Sonia Gandhi’s name was in voter list in 1980, whereas she became a citizen of India only in 1983. And this act is enough to cancel her Citizenship. 5. Rahul Gandhi has been added to this debate, where Dr. Subramanian Swamy claims he can stop Rahul from becoming Prime Minister of the Country under Article 18, Article 102 & Article 103. These are the five interesting perspectives presented. We will discuss these perspectives in some detail first and then proceed to check additional, irrefutable facts later. Additional Perspective 1: Amendment of Section 5(1)(c) in 1986 When I heard it first, I thought Dr. Swamy has possibly caught the hitch which will disqualify Sonia Gandhi’s citizenship and with that any chance of Indians being ruled by this Italian. Unfortunately, when I read the Section 5(1)(c), as it existed prior to 1986 amendment of Citizenship Act 1955, I found it is another misguided missile. I am re-producing it here for everyone’s convenience.

Pre-1986, Section 5(1)(c) of Citizenship Act 1955 read as “Women who are, or have been, married to citizens of India, and are ordinarily resident in India and have been so resident for five years immediately before making an application for registration.”

After 1986 Amendment the same Section 5(1)(c) reads as, “Persons who are, or have been, married to citizens of India, and are ordinarily resident in India and have been so resident for five years immediately before making an application for registration”

This can be checked here in this copy of Citizenship Act 1955, Point 7 on the Last Page. http://www.scribd.com/doc/83078536/Citizenship-Act-1955-No-57-of-1955 Basically the Act was amended to include people of both male & female gender by replacing the word “Women” with “Persons”. Sonia Gandhi is a Woman and about that, I presume, there is no doubt. Additional Perspective 2 (part 1) – Application of Reciprocity Clause to entire Section 5 and not just 5(1)(e) I have dealt with this question in my earlier post on the same subject, which can be accessed here: http://thinkers-pad.blogspot.in/2012/01/indian-citizenship-act-sonia-gandhi-dr.html However, since this point emerges regularly, I will quote at least two Court cases as well as the Statement of Objects and Reasons as described in the Original Act of 1955. Case 1 - R Venkateshwara Rao Vs. Union of India and Others Paragraph 12 of the Judgment of Andhra Highcourt given on 23rd April 1999 in R Venkateshwara Rao Vs. Union of India and Others, explaining application of reciprocity to Section 5(1)(e) only must be read to understand this point clearly. While the Judgment and the relevant Paragraph can be accessed here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/83059302/R-Venkateshwara-Rao-vs-Union-of-India-and-Others-on-23-April-1999 I am re-producing the Paragraph 12 here for everyone’s convenience.

“12. Citizenship is a relationship of sovereign and subject and so far as Indian Constitution or the Citizenship Act are concerned, no distinction is drawn in the status of citizen - whether a born citizen (Section 3), citizen by descent (Section 4) or citizen by registration (Section 5(1)(a) to (d)). The citizens under the above legal provisions arc treated on par and are entitled for all civil and political rights. There is a distinction drawn only with regard to citizenship under Section 5(1)(e) as also Section 6(1) of the Act. Question of reciprocity as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is relevant only in the context of the citizenship conferred on foreign nationals under the above two legal provisions - Section 5(1)(e) and Section 6(1) of the Act. While under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act, a person is admitted as a citizen of India, subject to such rights the native Indians enjoy in the countries enumerated in the First Schedule of the Act, insofar as citizen by naturalization under Section 6(1) of the Act is concerned, no subject or citizen of any country where citizens of India are prevented by law or practice of that country from becoming subjects or citizens of that country by naturalisation, can be naturalised as Indian citizens.”

Even when one reads Paragraph 13 of the same judgment, one can easily figure that Reciprocity doesn’t apply to Section 5(1)(c) of Citizenship Act, under which Sonia Gandhi has taken citizenship. People can read it in the link provided above. However, I am re-producing an extract from Paragraph 13 here for everyone’s convenience.

“13. From the above discussion, it is clear that for conferment of citizenship by registration under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act, no reciprocity has been imposed by the Parliament. Under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act, there are twin conditions for acquiring the citizenship viz., (i) marriage to an Indian citizen and (ii) 5 years stay in India at the time of making application for registration as a citizen. It is not in dispute that the 8th respondent had complied these conditions and as such, was conferred with the status of Indian citizenship by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act. It is for the Parliament, which is the legislative body, to prescribe conditions while conferring citizenship; but merely because conditions have not been prescribed, thus, enabling the citizen of foreign origin to contest for the political post, it cannot be said that the provision is unconstitutional.”

Case 2 – T A Usman Mahomed Vs. State of Madras This is a case which was filed within 4yrs of enactment of Citizenship Act 1955 and Madras High Court gave its judgment on 17th November 1959. The case per se is a very interesting one, however, our attention here is going to be on application of Reciprocity Clause to Section 5(1)(e). This point has been explained nicely in Paragraph 16, under Point 5 of Explanation on Page 6 of this Document. This can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/89206967/T-A-Mahomed-Usman-vs-State-of-Madras-on-17-November-1959 However, I am re-producing it here for everyone’s convenience.

“(5) A person registered under this section shall be a citizen of India by registration as from the date on which he is so registered; and a person registered under the provisions of clause (b)(ii) of Article 6 or article 8 of the Constitution shall be deemed to be a citizen of India by registration as from the commencement of the Constitution or the date on which he was so registered, whichever may be later." It would be noticed that Section 5(1)(e) refers to persons, who are citizens of a country specified in the first schedule. This has to be read in conjunction with Section 11, under, which 'every person who is a citizen of a Commonwealth country specified in the First Schedule shall by virtue of that citizenship have, the status of a Commonwealth citizen of India', and the terms of Section 12 which enables the Central Government to "make provision on the basis of reciprocity for the conferment of all or any of the rights of a citizen of India on the citizens of any country specified in the First Schedule". The first schedule sets out, inter alia, the Commonwealth countries and includes in that list Pakistan.”

Section 11 & 12 of Citizenship Act 1955, prior to its amendment in 2003, also explain the application of Reciprocity Clause to Section 5(1)(e) alone, as it deals with Commonwealth Nations. I have explained it in my earlier post on this subject. Case 3 – The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the original Citizenship Act 1955 The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the original Citizenship Act 1955, as enacted on 30th December 1955 by the President of India, makes it very clear that Reciprocity Clause was meant for citizens of Commonwealth Countries taking Indian Citizenship. This can be read on Page 10, 2nd Paragraph under Statement of Objects & Reasons, here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/89203772/Citizenship-Amendment-Act-2003-Contains-Statement-of-Objects-and-Reasons-of-the-Original-Act-of-1955 I am re-producing it here for everyone’s convenience.

“The Bill also seeks to formally recognize Commonwealth citizenship and permit the Central Government to extend on a reciprocal basis such rights of an Indian citizen as may be agreed upon to the citizens of other Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland.”

Additional Perspective 2 (part 2) – The Citizenship Amendment Act 2003 was carried out in a Hurry On May 8, 1998 a Commission on Review of Administrative Laws was formed. This was headed by P C Jain and had three other members. This four member commission submitted its report in 2 Volumes on 30th September 1998 to the Government of India. 109 Central Acts had been referred to this Commission for review by the Union Govt. Citizenship Act 1955 was one of them. Meanwhile in 2000, Dr. L M Singhvi High level Committee on Indian Diaspora was created under an order issued on 18th August 2000. This committee made various suggestions relating to Indian Diaspora worldwide and one of them was Overseas Citizenship status. Based on this while Citizenship Act was being amended to include Overseas Citizenship status (with limited rights), sections relating to Commonwealth Nations and Citizenship were Omitted. Originally, L K Advani presented this Bill to the Parliament on May 9, 2003 (Rajya Sabha). The Bill was then sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee headed by Pranab Mukherjee. Here’s the link to the Rajya Sabha proceedings on tabling of the Bill on 9th May 2003: http://www.scribd.com/doc/89060694/Citizenship-Amendment-Bill-2003-9th-May-2003-Tabling-of-the-Bill The Bill was presented again on December 18, 2003, after a gap of 7 months in Rajya Sabha and debated. It was presented then in Lok Sabha on December 22, 2003 and debated. Rajya Sabha debate of 18th December 2003 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/89064031/Citizenship-Amendment-Bill-2003-Tabling Lok Sabha debate of 22nd December 2003 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/89064397/Citizenship-Amendment-Bill-2003-Debate-in-LOK-SABHA Since the second meet of Indian Diaspora was scheduled in Delhi on January 9-10, 2004, President of India Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam gave his assent to the Bill on January 7, 2004. However, if people doubt either the intelligence of Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam or his integrity while giving his assent, then the entire story relating to Sonia Gandhi & Citizenship Act is humbug, as rumor mongers have also credited him with having stopped Sonia Gandhi from becoming PM based on Citizenship Act or Dual Citizenship issue. Overall, the process of review and amendment of Citizenship Act seems to have been going on since 1998, which finally culminated in 2003. Additional Perspective 3 – Invalidity of Citizenship Amendment Act 2003 As far as case of Sonia Gandhi’s disqualification from occupying Constitutional Offices is concerned, validity or invalidity of Citizenship Amendment Act 2003 is immaterial. However, for the sake of argument and clarity, let us spend a few minutes on this issue. The argument given is that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Citizenship Amendment Act 2003 didn’t cover the issue of removal of Reciprocity Clause. To know the truth, one simply needs to look at Paragraph 2(vii) of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2003. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for 2003 Amendment is given on Page 9 of this Document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/89203032/Citizenship-Amendment-Bill-2003-Including-Statement-of-Objects-and-Reasons However, I am re-producing the Statement of Objects & Reasons here for everyone’s convenience.

“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The Citizenship Act, 1955 which provides for the acquisition of citizenship, after the commencement of the Constitution by birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and incorporation of territory under certain circumstances, and also provides for the termination and deprivation of citizenship, was among those 109 Central Acts identified for a review by the Commission on Review of Administrative Laws constituted by the Central Government under the Chairmanship of Shri P.C. Jain in 1998. Subsequently, the High Level Committee on Indian Diaspora constituted by the Central Government, inter alia, recommended the amendment of this Act to provide for the grant of dual citizenship to persons of Indian origin belonging to certain specified countries. The Central Government has accordingly decided to make provisions for the grant of dual citizenship and has taken the opportunity of introducing a scheme for the compulsory registration of every citizen of India, and for this purpose to issue national identity cards. 2. The above objects are proposed to be achieved, inter alia, by amending provisions of the Citizenship Act so as to— (i) make acquisition of Indian citizenship by registration and naturalization more stringent; (ii) prevent illegal migrants from becoming eligible for Indian citizenship; (iii) simplify the procedure to facilitate the re-acquisition of Indian citizenship by persons of full age who are children of Indian citizens, and former citizens of independent India; (iv) provide for the grant of overseas citizenship of India to persons of Indian origin belonging to specified countries, and Indian citizens who choose to acquire the citizenship of any of these countries at a later date; (v) provide for the compulsory registration and issue of a national identity card to all citizens of India; (vi) enhance the penalty for violation of its provisions, as well as the rules framed under it; and (vii) to omit all provisions recognizing, or relating to the Commonwealth citizenship from the Act. 3. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects. NEW DELHI; L. K. ADVANI. The 7th May, 2003.”

Section 5(1)(e), 11, 12 and Annexure 1 of this Act related to Commonwealth Citizenship and were accordingly repealed. Therefore, the question of its validity or invalidity doesn’t arise. And all said and done, India is much farther away from being a Banana Republic that an Invalid Law would continue to exist. Additional Perspective 4 – Sonia Gandhi’s name in Voter List of 1980 vis-à-vis her Citizenship in 1983 It is the best argument I have come across till now. I have not been able to verify this, but with good faith in Dr. Swamy, the scanned copy of 1980 Voter List carrying name of Sonia Gandhi does seem interesting. One can check the same here on Janta Party website: http://janataparty.org/annexures/ann15p61.html And there is no doubt that Sonia Gandhi did become Indian Citizen on 30th April 1983. This information is as per CIC under RTI. The same can be checked here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/89066355/Shri-Milap-Choraria-vs-Ministry-of-Home-Affairs-Mha-on-12-June-2009 However, between 1999 & 2012, now, Dr. Swamy has not moved any court based on this information (as far as I know) and, therefore, if at all there is any substance in this allegation, someone from within Public will have to take the step forward. Whoever moves court based on this information must verify facts before hand. If Dr. Swamy, who has gone to Allahabad Highcourt and Delhi Highcourt on some very trivial issues for Sonia Gandhi’s disqualification (and failed) has not taken up this matter, then a thorough investigation is called for before serious moves. Additional Perspective 5 – Challenging Rahul Gandhi on PM-ship through Article 18, Article 102 & Article 103 This is what Dr. Swamy said: Article 18 of Constitution of India refers to Abolition of Titles, has no relation to Rahul Gandhi’s possible Prime Ministership issue. Awaits necessary controversy to work using this article. Article 102 has been thoroughly rejected in the Courts. Cases have been listed below, people can read themselves. Under Article 103, a case by Dr. Swamy himself has been lost once in 2009 in Delhi High Court. Are there fresh facts coming up? No further comments. Time for other Hard Facts 1. Three court cases where Sonia Gandhi’s citizenship issue has been raised were read in detail. One case was R Venkateshwara Rao Vs. Union of India and Others in Andhra High Court where the Judgment was passed on 23rd April 1999. Second was Harishanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi in Supreme Court where the Judgment was passed on 12th September 2001. Third was Rashtriya Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India in Delhi High Court where the Judgment was passed on 24th November 2006. R Venkateshwara Rao Vs. Union of India: http://www.scribd.com/doc/83059302/R-Venkateshwara-Rao-vs-Union-of-India-and-Others-on-23-April-1999 Harishanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi: http://www.scribd.com/doc/83052896/Hari-Shanker-Jain-vs-Sonia-Gandhi-on-12-September-2001 Rashtriya Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India: http://www.scribd.com/doc/89228541/Rashtriya-Mukti-Morcha-Through-vs-Union-of-India-Uoi-Through-on-24-November-2006 2. All three cases went in favor of Sonia Gandhi. The Judgments are elaborate. Have touched on all points raised in various public debates. In Harishanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi lack of necessary evidence presented by the petitioners led to loss of case. 3. President A P J Abdul Kalam, who’s integrity cannot be doubted by ordinary mortals, and who’s career record doesn’t need any certificate for human intelligence has been dragged into this somewhat strange and unnecessary controversy. In order to extract himself out of this, President’s Secretariat issued a Press Release on May 19, 2004. You can read the same here: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=1730 I am re-producing it here for everyone’s convenience.

“It has been reported in a section of the press that the President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam had discussed the citizenship issue with Smt. Sonia Gandhi when she met him yesterday at Rashtrapati Bhavan. This is contrary to facts. It did not figure in the discussions at all.”

Conclusion Indian Constitution, Citizenship Act 1955 & Representation of People Act 1950 & 1951 must be reviewed and amended to ensure foreign born citizens, who we believe cannot appreciate the interests of our Nation and Culture and in certain cases doubt integrity, are barred from voting, contesting elections and occupying Constitutional Offices. This suggestion is not based on some petty outlook, but simply because Indians, as people, are too far away from accepting any such arrangement with open-heartedness. There is nothing wrong in rejection of a Foreign-born persons involvement in Indian Politics, however, when we clap at Indians occupying significant political offices in other countries, we do create a case for such an arrangement within India. Some people are bound to take this as my opposition to “good-work” undertaken by this person or that. I cannot help such thinking. But shooting empty bullets is not going to injure anyone, surely not fatally. It is better that every move we make is based on solid reason, logic and material evidence. Else, apart from making noise, we will not reach anywhere.

The Indian Citizenship Act, Sonia Gandhi & Dr. Subramanian Swamy

 You must have heard these three names quite often and together on various occasions. You might heard them for the following reasons: 1. Dr. Subramanian Swamy stopped Sonia Gandhi in her tracks by invoking Section 5 of Indian Citizenship Act 1955 and not letting her become the Prime Minister of India. http://www.janataparty.org/annexures/ann03p22.html 2. K S Sudarshan & Dr. Subramanian Swamy claim that BJP paved the way for Sonia Gandhi’s political participation by amending the Indian Citizenship Act 1955. They say Vajpayee Govt removed a certain reciprocity clause that existed in the Act prior to 2003 amendment. At the centre is the Reciprocity Clause. What is it? The Clause under discussion is Section 5(1)(e), as it existed prior to 2003 amendment. For everyone’s comfort, I shall reproduce entire Section 5, since that is what gets mentioned generally.

Section 5. Citizenship by registration (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the prescribed authority may, on application made in this behalf, register as a citizen of India any person who is not already such citizen by virtue of the Constitution or by virtue of any of the other provisions of this Act and belongs to any of the following categories,- (a) persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in India and have been resident for five years immediately before making an application for registration; (b) persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in any country or place outside undivided India; (c) persons who are, or have been, married to citizens of India and are ordinarily resident in India and have been so resident for five years immediately before making an application for registration. (d) minor children of persons who are citizens of India; and (e) persons of full age and capacity who are citizens of a country specified in Schedule I: PROVIDED that in prescribing the conditions and restrictions subject to which persons of any such country may be registered as citizens of India under this clause, the Central Government shall have due regard to the conditions subject to which citizens of India may, by law or practice of that country, become citizens of that country by registration. Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section, a person shall be deemed to be of Indian origin if he, or either of his parents, was born in undivided India. (2) No person being of full age shall be registered as a citizen of India under sub-section (1) until he has taken the oath of allegiance in the form specified in Schedule II. (3) No person who has renounced, or has been deprived of his, Indian citizenship, or whose Indian citizenship has terminated, under this Act shall be registered as a citizen of India under sub-section (1) except by order of the Central Government. (4) The Central Government may, if satisfied that there are special circumstances justifying such registration, cause any minor to be registered as a citizen of India. (5) A person registered under this section shall be a citizen of India by registration as from the date on which he is so registered; and a person registered under the provisions of clause (b)(ii) of Article 6 or Article 8 of the Constitution shall be deemed to be a citizen of India by registration as from the commencement of the Constitution or the date on which he was so registered, whichever may be later.

In Section 5(1)(e), where the reciprocity clause is mentioned, you will see a mention of Schedule 1 countries. The Reciprocity clause mentioned along, in this sub-section is specifically for countries listed in the Schedule 1 of this Act. The Schedule 1 of this Act is primarily about the Commonwealth Countries. I am re-producing it here for everyone’s convenience:

SCHEDULE I [Sections 2(1)(b) and 5(1)(e)] A. The following Commonwealth countries: 1. United Kingdom 2. Canada 3. Commonwealth of Australia 4. New Zealand 5. Union of South Africa 6. Pakistan 7. Ceylon 8. Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland 9. Ghana 10. Federation of Malaya 11. Singapore B. The Republic of Ireland Explanation: In this Schedule, "United Kingdom" means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and includes the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and all Colonies; and "Commonwealth of Australia" includes the territories of Papua and the territory of Norfolk Island.

It is clear from the Text of Schedule 1 of Indian Citizenship Act 1955, as it existed before 2003, that the Schedule is in relation to Section 5 (1) (e). You’ll not find a mention of Italy in this list. Does the clause of Reciprocity apply to entire Section 5 or only to Section 5(1)(e) The clause clearly applies to Section 5(1)(e) only. Apart from simple reading, the proof of this is also available in Section 11 & Section 12, which both related to special provisions for Commonwealth Countries and specially the Section 12, which relates to Reciprocity with Commonwealth. I am providing the text of Section 11 & 12 for everyone’s convenience:

11. Commonwealth citizenship Every person who is a citizen of a Commonwealth country specified in Schedule I shall, by virtue of that citizenship, have the status of a Commonwealth citizen of India. 12. Power to confer rights of Indian citizen on citizens of certain countries (1) The Central Government may, by order notified in the Official Gazette, make provisions on a basis of reciprocity for the conferment of all or any of the rights of a citizen of India on the citizens of any country specified in Schedule I. (2) Any order made under sub-section (1) shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any law other than the Constitution of India or this Act.

What does this all mean? It simply means, even if this Sub-section 5(1)(e) had been retained during the 2003 amendment by NDA Govt, there was nothing in the Indian Citizenship Act 1955 that restricted an Italian from contesting elections under any Reciprocity Clause and, therefore, from occupying high Constitutional Offices including that of the Prime Minister. What is Dr. Subramanian Swamy talking about? I don’t know. Since the Sub-section 5(1)(e) was dropped during the 2003 Amendment which came into force in January 2004, by the time of 2004 elections in May, even if this clause had any chance of stopping Sonia Gandhi from becoming Prime Minister, Dr. Swamy wouldn’t have had the benefit of this clause. What Dr. Swamy clearly submitted to President Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam was a copy of Indian Citizenship Act 1955 that had already lapsed. What did BJP amend in the Indian Citizenship Act 1955, in 2003? It is very important to understand that any change to any Act of the Parliament can only be done in the Parliament. Certain people like K S Sudarshan have tried giving the impression that amendments to this Act were done surreptitiously. Nothing can be further from truth. The amendments are made in Parliament and usually for something as important as this Act, there is usually a healthy debate between Treasury & Opposition benches. The Citizenship Amendment Act 2003 made two important changes in the act 1. Creation of a new status of citizenship for PIOs/Overseas Indians through Overseas Citizens category 2. Removal of all clauses that gave any special status to Commonwealth Nations & its Citizens Overseas Citizens of India Rajyasabha discussed the Bill & passed it on 18th December 2003 and Loksabha discussed & passed the Bill on 22nd December 2003. The Bill received high priority because Government of India had promised a special status for Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) and a fulfillment of this promise in the form of Overseas Citizens of India status to PIOs was necessary. The Diaspora Conference with the PIOs was due between 5th-7th January 2004. For this purpose, an amended Act received President’s Assent on 7th Jaunary 2004. Through addition of Section 7(a) on Overseas Citizens, a new chapter on India’s relation with Indian Diaspora abroad was started. However, since the Citizenship under this Section came with restrictions which were listed in Section 7 (b) (2). I am re-producing those restrictions here for everyone’s convenience:

Section 7(b)(2): An overseas citizen of India shall not be entitled to the rights conferred on a citizen of India a. Under article 16 of the Constitution with regard to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment; b. Under article 58 of the Constitution f b. or election as President; c. Under article 66 of the Constitution for election of Vice-President; d. Under article 124 of the Constitution for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court; e. Under article 217 of the Constitution for appointment as a Judge of the High Court; f. Under section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 in regard to registration as a voter; g. Under sections 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 with regard to the eligibility for being a member of the House of the People or of the Council of States, as the case may be. h. Under sections 5, 5A & 6 of Representation of the People Act 1951 (43 of 1951) with regard to eligibility for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or a Legislative Council, as the case me of, of a State; i. For appointment to public services and posts in connection with the affair of the Union or any State except for appointment in such services & posts as the Central Government may by special order in the behalf specify.

Deletion of Sections giving special status to Commonwealth Nations & their Citizens In the Citizenship Amendment Act 2003, we find Sections dealing with Commonwealth nations giving them special and preferred status were all deleted. The Deleted Section, from the earlier Act were: 1. 2(1)(b) 2. 5(1)(e) 3. Substitution in Section 6(1) 4. 11 5. 12 6. Schedule 1 7. Part omission in Schedule 2 All of these sections dealt with Citizenship Issue with respect to Commonwealth Nations & their Citizens. With the deletion, India de-recognized Commonwealth as a special group as far as Citizenship goes. Conclusion BJP has clearly strengthened The Citizenship Act. Citizenship Act, per se, has nothing that can stop an Indian of foreign origin from running for Public Offices. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing in the Representation of the People Act either. Except for Overseas Citizens, all Citizens of India, irrespective of their past Citizenship have the right to vote and all those who can vote can stand for elections and all those who win elections are eligible for occupation of High Offices. Lets stop wasting our time on useless issues.