Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Goans Set To Lose Voting Rights – by Marcos Alemao

It is wrong on the part of ECI to make the Representation Act and Election Rules applicable to Goans who obtained Portuguese Passports and delete their names from the election rolls. The Goans born before December 19, 1961 are already Portuguese citizens by birth and after the Indian Military took over Goa on Dec 19th 1961, they became Indian Citizens by right, as such they should not lose their voting right.
The central Government under BJP rule is forcibly trying to evict Goans from the soil of Goa, where they were born and lived. This BJP Government supported by RSS is trying to finish Goans especially Christians from their own land. Lakhs of Gujaratis migrated to UK with UK passports did they lose their voting right. Pondichery was ruled by the French and many of them already migrated to France or other European countries, did they lose their voting right. Why only Goans should lose their voting right?
Secondly many people (migrants) migrated to Goa and are staying in Goa, they have everything, ration cards, voting cards obtained by bribing, talatis and mamlatdars and with blessing of the sitting MLAs. Many of them have voting cards in Goa as well as in their states. The joint CEO Mr Narayan Navti should check and delete their names from election roles. Perhaps even the joint CEO will have his name on election roll in Goa.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

CASTELESS SOCIETY? By Adv. Radharao Gracias

It would be a lie, to claim that there is no caste among Christians, in Goa. How did an essentially egalitarian religion, come to be associated with the pernicious caste system? To find an answer, one has to go back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when local people embraced Christianity.
There was no concept called Hinduism at that time. There were only Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vysas and Shudras with their sub castes. For the missionaries, it was a strange situation as there was no religion in their sense of the term. So, they called the practice “Konknne”, thus giving the religion a geographical connotation, which is how Hinduism also got its name.
So, entire village communities embraced the new faith, lock, stock and barrel (perhaps the feni came in the barrel !). The new converts were accustomed to live a hierarchical existence, with the upper castes dominating the lower castes, over thousands of years. And this was imported into the new faith. Caste is like the chassis and engine numbers embedded into a car. Even if wiped off the numbers can still be traced. And the missionaries were unable to do much about it.
Was force necessary to compel the communities to embrace Christianity in the sixteenth century ? For an answer, consider what happened in the year 1980 after the Assembly and Parliamentary elections in Goa. The rest of the country voted massively for Congress (I). Goa alone, once again proved to be “ajeeb”, as Nehru had found in 1963. Congress (I) was routed. Congress (U) swept the polls winning twenty three out of thirty seats. And overnight, the Congress (U) converted to Congress (I). The reasons given were, that it was in the interest of the people to join the party in power at the center for the purpose of development. I can visualise a similar thing happening, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when the people embraced Christianity, the faith of the winners. And for the same reasons !
A change however, is now discernable. Economic, educational advancement and travel is helping the Christian community abandon old prejudices and coalesce into a homogenous unit. Inter caste marriages are now more of a rule than an exception. Catholics are now progressing from caste to egalitarianism. And from feni to scotch, you may say !
The origin of caste may be traced to Bhagwad Gita, Rigveda and Manu Smriti. The Gita says, “The work of the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vysas are different, in harmony with the three powers of their born nature”, and goes on to enumerate, the works of each caste. According to Dr.R.Unni: “Manu divides Hindus into four Varnas i.e. casteism. He not only divides Hindus into four Varnas, he also grades them. Besides, prescribing rank and occupation Manu grants privileges to Swarnas and imposes penalties on the Shudras. The status of the Shudras in the Hindu Society is prescribed by Manu the law giver. There are so many codes against the Shudras and women.”
Can Hinduism exist without caste? For an answer, one has to examine the essential features of the religion, namely :
“Rita (“truth” or “order”), in Indian religion and philosophy, the cosmic order mentioned in the Vedas, the ancient sacred scriptures of India. As Hinduism developed from the ancient Vedic religion, the concept of rita led to the doctrines of dharma (duty) and karma (accumulated effects of good and bad actions). Rita is the physical order of the universe, the order of the sacrifice, and the moral law of the world. Because of rita, the sun and moon pursue their daily journeys across the sky, and the seasons proceed in regular movement. ....... Violation (anrita) of the established order by incorrect or improper behaviour, even if unintentional, constituted sin and required careful expiation.
Dharma is the religious and moral law governing individual conduct and is one of the four ends of life. In addition to the dharma that applies to everyone (sadharana dharma)—consisting of truthfulness, non-injury, and generosity, among other virtues—there is also a specific dharma (svadharma) to be followed according to one’s class, status, and station in life.
Karma, (“act”), the universal causal law by which good or bad actions determine the future modes of an individual’s existence. Karma represents the ethical dimension of the process of rebirth (samsara), belief in which is generally shared among the religious traditions of India. Indian soteriologies (theories of salvation) posit that future births and life situations will be conditioned by actions performed during one’s present life—which itself has been conditioned by the accumulated effects of actions performed in previous lives. The doctrine of karma thus directs adherents of Indian religions toward their common goal: release (moksha) from the cycle of birth and death. Karma thus serves two main functions within Indian moral philosophy: it provides the major motivation to live a moral life, and it serves as the primary explanation of the existence of evil.”
Thus Hinduism enjoins that every individual must abide by Rita (Cosmic order) and follow Dharma. Afterlife, according to Hinduism is a matter of births and rebirths depending on the Karma of the individual. If he leads a pious life as enjoined by Dharma, he will finally attain Moksha otherwise, he will continue to be born into various life forms or castes according to his conduct. Thus a Shudra has to perform the Dharma enjoined on a Shudra. It is for this reason that when Shambuka a Shudra went into penance, Ram decapitated him because a Shudra had violated the Rita by doing penance not permissible for a Shudra. Similarly, Ekalavya had to sacrifice his thumb because not being a Kshatriya, he was not entitled to the knowledge of warfare.
Now, that being the case, can one be casteless and Hindu at the same time ? I am afraid that just as there can be no Christianity without Christ, there can be no Hinduism without Caste. If half a millennium of Christianity could not wipe out caste, how can Hinduism do it? Thus, an egalitarian society, as envisaged by the Constitution, is an impossible dream.

Letter To The Portuguese Premier A Cry To Stop The Bloodless Genocide Of Goans – by A. Veronica Fernandes, Candolim

To,His Excellency Antonio Costa,Honb’l Prime Minister of the Republic of Portugal,Lisboa,Portugal.
Your Excellency,
We the undersigned Goans, declare here that we, along with our homeland Goa, the erstwhile Overseas Porvince (Provincia Ultramar) of Portugal, were officially sold to India on behalf of Portugal, on 31stDecember 1974, by the ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal – Mr. Mario Soares.In fact what Mr. Mario Soares signed with India on 31st December 1974 was a “Sale Deed” in the guise of a “Treaty”. The terms of this so called Treaty were surreptitiously decided by Mr. Mario Soares and Mr. Y.B. Chavan – the Foreign Affairs Minister of India, in New York on 24th September 1974 and signed in New Delhi on 31st December 1974. The same was ratified in Lisbon on 14th March 1975. This so-called Treaty consists of only 6 Articles, none of which unfortunately is concerning Goans and Goa. This political manipulation of Mr. Mario Soares amounts to willful violation of our Fundamental Human Rights, because Goans were neither informed nor consulted to ascertain their wishes, aspirations and the safeguards to be incorporated in this so - called Treaty.
Mr. Mario Soares the then Prime Minister of Mr. Portugal treated Goans and Goa as a disposable commodity. The form and the procedure to formulate the so-called Treaty were not different from when slaves were sold by their masters. In such Sale-Deeds, the seller neither takes nor needs to take consent of who or what is sold and the buyer has no obligations towards who or what she/he has bought.And yet this so-called Treaty, is so vastly contrary to the Treaties signed by these very same two Nations:1: India on 28th May 1956, with regards Pondichery.2: Portugal on 20th December 1999, with regards Macau.
1: The late Prime Minister of India, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru as Minister for Foreign Affairs, signed a Treaty with France with regards its colony Pondicherry. This Treaty consists of XXXI (31) Articles and VIII (8) Articles of Protocol. All these Articles are regarding the wishes, aspirations and safeguards for the citizens of Pondicherry. These Articles were arrived at, after a couple of years of consultations with the representatives of the citizens of Pondicherry. The said consultations concluded on 21st October 1954 and the Treaty was signed on 28thMay 1956.
2: Portugal signed a Treaty with China on 20th December 1999 with regards its colony Macau. This Treaty consists of 17 Clauses that fully safeguard and respect the wishes and aspirations of the citizens of Macau. Even as of today, China does not claim to be a Democratic Nation yet, the said Treaty is highly democratic, human and humane. Fortunately for the citizens of Macau, Mr. Mario Soares was not in power then!!
This treacherous so-called “Indo-Portuguese Treaty” completed 41 harrowing years for Goans and for our Homeland Goa, on 31st December 2015. It could not have been otherwise, since the so-called Treaty was a conspiracy against Goans and Goa, hatched by the then Prime Minister of Portugal Mr. Mario Soares and the Government of India. It is pertinent and necessary to take note that Dr. Inocencio Galvao Teles – ex-Law Minister in Dr. Oliveira Salazar’s Government, writing in the Weekly “Diabo” in 1990, asserted that the “Indo-Portuguese Treaty is Invalid”.i) So, what is our status as a People, before the Community of Nations that are signatories of the “Geneva Convention” and the “Charter of the UNO since Dr. Galvao Teles asserts that the Indo-Portuguese Treaty is invalid?
ii) Also, since Portugal transferred its sovereignty (“invalidly”, surreptitiously) over Goa, Daman, Diu and Nagar Haveli to India, only on 31st December 1974, what according to the Community of Nations, is the status of all the laws, transactions etc. taken by the Government of India with reference to Goans and Goa, during the 13 years, prior to the so-called “Indo -Portuguese Treaty” of December 31, 1974?
On 19th December 2015, Goa completed 54 years of its conquest by India from Portugal. (Supreme Court of India – Mons. Sebastiao Francisco Xavier dos R. Monteiro V/s State of Goa A.I.R. 1970 Page 329 S.C.). This was followed, as seen above, by the treacherous so- called “Indo-Portuguese Treaty of 31stDecember 1974”.
As a direct result – with every passing day, it becomes glaringly clear that the sole objective of both the signatories of the so called Indo-Portuguese Treaty of 31st December 1974, was to ensure their own individual and national interests. And in their scheme of things, Goans and Goa were chosen as their SACRIFICIAL LAMBS! Very ironically but not surprisingly, both India and Portugal vociferously claim to be Democratic Nations and both are signatories of the Charter of the UNO, Geneva Convention and Vienna Convention (Treaty).
Also, with every passing day, it becomes glaringly clear to those who are honest enough to see the continuous, wanton destruction of all that is Goa and Goan; and to those who are honest enough to hear the agonizing silent cries of Goans, whose pleas and protests are ignored, mocked at and bull-dozed, by powers-that be.
i) The total area of Goa is only 3702 Sq. Kms. This scarce land of ours is grabbed by the land-sharks from across the borders and by the Armed Forces, using their money, political and muscle-power;
ii) Our ancient Indigenious Ghaunkari (Communidades) Institution, zealously guarded by our ancestors and respected by the different Dynasties that ruled Goa over thousands of years, as well as by the Portuguese Government during its 451 years of rule, are now being systematically dismantled, despite our written and verbal protests;
iii) Our lives and limbs are in perpetual danger, even though from the time of the conquest of Goa by the government of India, we had to fix Iron-Grills on our Windows and Door and Iron-Shutters on our commercial establishments.
iv) Our moveable and immoveable properties are robbed by those who descend upon Goa, even by vehicles from across our borders and/or by taking advantage of our still – trusting nature.
v) Our peaceful, happy, convivial relationships among all Goans, regardless of our religious affiliations, are being poisoned by communal virus by all shades of Right – Wing Organisations that have set base in Goa.
vi) Anxiety and fear rules our hearts and minds;
vii) The population of Goans that was about six (6) lakhs in 1961 is now well beyond fourteen (14) lakhs of which the population of Non-Goans is over 50% and literally growing daily, in leaps and bounds;
viii) Because we are a peaceful, non-violent, civilized people, unable and unaccustomed to killing, burning, rioting, we feel alone and forsaken by the Community of Nations, despite them undoubtedly being aware of the misery and injustice heaped on us.
The frightening process and real-time prospects of eliminating Goa and Goans – a veritable GENOCIDE – is stated bluntly among many others, by two Goans who worked and fought to end the Portuguese rule in Goa:
1. Mr. Lambert Mascharenhas a senior journalist, published in 1955 while in Bombay, a much-read novel titled: “SORROWING LIES MY LAND”
Now in Goa a centenarian, published another novel in 1988 titled:
Both the titles are self-explanatory and clearly reveal Mr. Mascharenhas’ sentiments about his “Land”, then and now. He even made an open statement in the local Press saying that “he preferred the Goa of the Portuguese days”.
2. Mr. Prabakhar Sinari as a stridden, brave teenager then, joined “Azad Gomantak Dal”, the only organization that believed in and used arms to end the Portuguese rule in Goa. Some of them including Prabakar Sinari paid for their actions by serving time in jail. Daring as he was, made good his escape, in a dramatic second attempt.
This same Mr. Prabakhar Sinari now laments in an article “Quo Vadis Goa?” published in the local daily The Navhind Times. Among other observation in his article, he says:
1. “Looking at the liberated Goa, 54 years after the Portuguese left our shores, the sons of the soil are the ones who have been left high and dry. It is therefore not surprising that they chose to leave Goa most of them permanently”;
2. “Look at the very things are being allowed here, Goa is on the verge of losing its identity. In fact, Goa has already lost on many counts”;
3. “As a matter of fact, this development by permitting major change in demography, raises a pertinent question in the minds of all surviving freedom fighters including me”;
“Is this the Goa for which we made so many sacrifices?”
4. “Time is fast ticking”.
5. “Getting a “Special Status” for Goa could be one of the major solutions. States like Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh and then some more in the North – East have this previllege”.
The reality however about Goa getting “Special Status” from the government of India, as Mr. Prabakhar Sinari suggests, is wishful thinking, “a mirage”, as the present Chief Minister of Goa recently stated in public. This despite the long drawn People’s Movements; an unanimous Resolution passed in the Legislative Assembly of Goa; Public Meetings; Conferences; Large Number of Publications; a Private Member Bill introduced in the Rajya Sabah (Upper House) by our Member of Parliament (Shantaram Naik).
The Government of India made its stand very clear by a letter written by the Minister for Home to Mr. Naik that the demand (by Goa) for “Special Status” is “unconstitutional and unacceptable as per Article 19 of the Constitution”.
The reason for the plight of Goans, including the rejection of our demand for “Special Status” is because we are a CONQUERED PEOPLE and conquered people have NO RIGHTS but ONLY DUTIES towards the CONQUEROR. Conquered people cannot make demands, but be satisfied with whatever the conqueror may give, out of his own sweet will and pleasure. India therefore has no obligation towards us, other than perhaps occasionally offering and/or promising to offer us some socio-political Lollipops, in an attempt to make us believe that we are free, that we are liberated, that everything is wonderful for us….
In the light of our tragic plight, worsened manifold by the Government of Portugal by its so-called Treaty on 31st December 1974, we assert that it is the moral duty of the Government of Portugal to do whatever needs to be done – politically, diplomatically – including officially Re-visiting the treacherous so – called Indo-Portuguese Treaty, thereby hopefully averting a HOLOCAUST of Goans.
We believe that governance is a continuous process and that the Government of Your Excellency will not let our plea and our cry go unheeded. We are well aware that the “Developed Nations” in particular, are acutely conscious and concerned about injustice, destruction and brutalities faced by many, who are unable to defend and/or protect themselves.
As the valiant Mr. Prabakhar Sinari writes in his article “Quo Vadis Goa?”
Indeed it is. Hopefully, if your Excellency and the Community of Nations urgently take up our desperate cause, because you believe in Universal Justice and that the Human Rights of Goans too must be upheld, then the silent and progressively not-so-silent cries of our people, our children - born and yet to be born, shall not be snuffed.
With Respect and admiration,
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Sergio Carvalho: Political/Social Analyst & Commentator.
A.Veronica Fernandes: Human Rights Campaigner and writer.
Bosco De Souza Eremita: Former Correspondent of Lusa.
Eurico Mascharenhas: Activist for Indigenous Rights.
Antonio Alvares: Educationist and Researcher.
NB: This letter was personally handed over to the Portuguese Consul in Panjim on 22.08/16 by all the above signatories.

Friday, September 2, 2016

Indian Citizenship Order 1962 By A Pereira

After the conquest of Goa, the Government of India passed the Citizenship Order, 1962, which declared that all persons born prior to liberation in Goa, shall be deemed to be Indian citizens, unless they make a declaration that they wish to retain their earlier citizenship or nationality. Goans who didn’t make such declaration were deemed to be Indian Nationals. However, despite the Citizenship Order, the Government of Portugal permitted persons born in their erstwhile Estado de India, and their descendants, to inscribe their births in Portugal and obtain Portuguese nationality. There is a lot of confusion about whether this inscription in Portugal, without obtaining a Cartão de Cidadão or a Passport, is tantamount to obtaining citizenship of Portugal and divesting a Goan of his Indian Citizenship, which I attempt to address herein.I will assume and proceed on the premise that birth registration in Portugal amounts to obtaining Portuguese citizenship, but yet contend that the same by itself will not divest a Goan of his Indian citizenship.
First of all, therefore, it will be important to know in what context the citizenship of an Indian citizen can be terminated. Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, provides for “termination of citizenship” and provides that any citizen of India who by naturalisation, registration or otherwise voluntarily acquires, the citizenship of another country shall, upon such acquisition, cease to be a citizen of India. Therefore it is apparent from Section 9, than Indian Citizenship can be terminated only on acquirement of foreign citizenship and that too, voluntarily. As per Section 40 of the Citizenship Rules 2009 the Central Government is appointed as the authority who has to determine the issues as to whether, when or how any citizen of India had acquired the citizenship of another country, and whilst doing so the Central Government has to follow the rules of procedure specified in Schedule III
SCHEDULE III, inter alia, lays down the following rules of procedure:-
1. Where it appears to the Central Government that a citizen of India has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any other country, it may require him to prove within such period as may be fixed by it in this behalf, that he has not voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country; and the burden of proving that he has not so acquired such citizenship shall be on him.
5. In determining whether a citizen of India has or has not voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any other country, the Central Government may take the following circumstances into consideration, namely: -
(a) whether the person has migrated to that country with the intention of making it his permanent home;
(b) whether he has in fact taken up permanent residence in that country; and
(c) any other circumstances relevant to the purpose.
6. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 4, a citizen of India who leaves or has left India without a travel document issued by the Central Government and resides outside India for a period exceeding three years, shall be deemed to have voluntarily acquired the citizenship of the country of his residence.
In MD Ayub Khan v. Commissioner of Police, Madras (AIR 1965 SC 1623) (which dealt with a case about a person who was in India on a Pakistani Passport and sought to be deported, and claimed that he is an Indian National), the Supreme Court held that acquisition of citizenship of another country to determine Indian citizenship must, however, be voluntary. It held that a quasi judicial enquiry would have to be conducted after giving the concerned person a fair chance of disproving the allegations, and an order is not to be made on the mere satisfaction of the authority without enquiry, that the citizen concerned has obtained a passport of another country. It held that the authority has also to determine that such latter citizenship has been voluntarily acquired. It held “if a plea is raised by the citizen that he had not voluntarily obtained the passport, the citizen must be afforded an opportunity to prove that fact. Cases may be visualised in which on account of force a person may be compelled or on account of fraud or misrepresentation he may be induced, without any intention of renunciation of his Indian citizenship, to obtain a passport from a foreign country. It would be difficult to say that such a passport is one which has been "obtained" within the meaning of Paragraph 3 of Sch. III and that a conclusive presumption must arise that he has acquired voluntarily citizenship of that country”. It further held “The High Court in appeal was of the view that S. 9 laid down an objective test and once it was found that the passport was obtained in fact by an Indian citizen from another country, the law determined the legal consequences of that conduct and no question of his "intent or understanding arose". We are unable to agree with that view. If voluntary acquisition of citizenship of another country determines Indian citizenship within the meaning of S. 9 (1), and by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Sch. III of the Citizenship Rules a conclusive presumption of voluntary acquisition of citizenship is to be raised from the obtaining of a passport from the Government of any other country, it would be implicit that the obtaining of a passport was the result of the exercise of free volition by the citizen.”
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in S. Mohsfii Shah v. Union of India and others (AIR 1974 J&K 48) further elucidated the rules and held that the plea that the passport was not acquired voluntarily but under duress or other circumstances has to be examined by the Central Government. It further held that where, it is proved that the passport was obtained under duress, compulsion, undue influence, fraud or fear, it will not amount to obtaining the passport within the meaning of Rule 3, Schedule III and therefore the question of treating the acquisition of the passport as conclusive proof of the loss of citizenship would not arise……..
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1975 SC 972 Gangadhar Yeshwant Bhandare v. Erasmo de Jesus Sequeira also spoke on the issue of voluntarily retaining Portuguese Nationality. In this case, the Supreme Court held the declaration signed by the Indian Citizen that he wishes to retain his Portuguese Nationality as per the Citizenship Order, 1962, was not voluntarily and of his free volition and did not embody the real intention or choice of the person signing it, therefore could not make divest him of his Indian Citizenship. However, the onus would lie on him to prove that he had not done so voluntarily and that he had discharged the same.
The Bombay High Court in Abdul Rahim Khan v. Union of India ( AIR 1977 Bombay 274, has held that the Supreme Court in Md. Ayub Khan's case was not giving an exhaustive list of the various types of circumstances in which a person can get out of the consequences of obtaining the passport nor was the Court holding that the plea of force, compulsion, fraud or misrepresentation would in addition require an averment that the person had no intention of renouncing his Indian citizenship. It held that, indeed, it would appear that if a passport has been obtained by force or fraud or misrepresentation, then the person raising such plea and justifying it would be required to be exonerated without there being any further plea or without consideration of his intention of renouncing his Indian citizenship; and it would appear that the question of intention of renouncement of his Indian citizenship is a factor, or an aspect which, according to the Supreme Court is not required to be considered apart from the case of fraud or force or misrepresentation resulting in the receipt or acquiring of the passport; this would also appear to be sustained by the observations in para 11 of report of the Supreme Court decision, earlier set out where the view of the High Court holding that the intention or understanding was irrelevant was characterised as erroneous. If further held “In other words, if a passport has been taken as a result of force or fraud or misrepresentation, it is not 'obtained' within the meaning of Para 3 of schedule III.
Similarly if a person applies for and receives a passport without any intention of renouncing his Indian citizenship or without understanding the nature of what he was doing, it would be an aspect, a factor to be considered by the determining authority. This is in our opinion, implicit in the observation of the Supreme Court to be found in paras 10 and 11 of Md. Ayub Khan's case, and this aspect of the matter has been made explicit in the subsequent decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in S Mohsin Shah's case (AIR 1974 J and K 48) (FB). It is clear to us that the Full Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court considered the Supreme Court as having laid down the requirement that a person is within the mischief of para 3 of Schedule III only if he had secured a passport wilfully and consciously, knowing full well the consequences of the same. It is also not possible to accept the submission that the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has travelled beyond the law as laid down by the Supreme court and that this Court considering Section 9 of the Act and Rule 30 and Schedule III for itself and bearing in mind the decisions of the Supreme Court earlier referred to should hold that the intention of the person who applied for a passport and received it or his lack of understanding or the absence of any intention on his part to acquire foreign citizenship or to renounce Indian citizenship were considerations extraneous to and irrelevant for the decision to be given by the central Government and in that view of the matter hold that the representation submitted by the petitioner did not require or warrant further inquiry. In other words, we were invited to restrict the available pleas to a case of coercion, compulsion, undue influence, fraud or fear. This submission is required to be repelled and it would appear that there are two reasons for doing so.”
In Bhagwati Prasad Dixit Ghorewala v. Rajeev Gandhi (AIR 1986 SC 1534), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is the Central Government alone which can decide the issue under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, and not the Courts.
In S. Nalini Srikaran v. Union of India (AIR 2007 Madras 187), the High Court of Madras has held that it is only an order passed by the Central Government under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act which operates cession of the citizenship of a person and not his acquisition of the passport of a foreign country, notwithstanding the conclusive presumption raised under the Rules.…….The authority has also to determine as to whether the person has voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship. ……….Thus, the termination of Indian citizenship does not merely depend upon the action of a foreign country in issuing a passport.
In Govt. of Andh. Pra. v. Mohd. Khan, 1962 AIR(SC) 1778, the Supreme Court held that the orders of deportation passed against a citizen without an inquiry by the Central Government were not sustainable, even if he possessed a foreign passport.
In Shiv Inder Singh and anr. V. State of Punjab (2016 Cr. L.J. 465) the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that “It follows that once a person is admitted or held to be a citizen of India, unless there is a decision of the Central Government under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act,1955 that he has acquired the citizen of a foreign country, he should be presumed to be an Indian citizen.” Applying the said statute law and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and High Courts, to the case of inscription/registration of birth by a Goan in Portugal (assuming that it amounts to acquiring Portuguese Citizenship), the following conclusions surface, viz. :-
1. If it appears to the Central Government that a Goan has voluntarily acquired a foreign citizenship through birth registration, it has to call upon him to prove that he had not registered his birth voluntarily and the issue of voluntariness would have to be decided in a quasi-judicial enquiry.
2. There is no conclusive presumption in our law, that registering birth in a foreign country will amount to acquiring foreign citizenship, like in the case of obtaining a passport, as per the rules provided in Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules.
3. The burden of proving that the citizen had registered his birth involuntarily would rest on the citizen. The citizen can discharge his burden by proving that the birth registration was done –
a. on account of compulsion i.e. by force or coercion he was compelled to do so
b. on account of fraud – that he was deceived or dishonestly induced to do so
c. on account of misrepresentation – that he was mislead and lied to about the consequences
d. on account of under duress – under imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death
e. on account of undue influence - Mental, moral, or physical domination that deprives a person of independent judgment and substitutes another person's objectives in place of his or her own, through excessive insistence, superiority of physical power, mind, or will, or pressure applied due to authority, position, or relationship in relation to the strength of the person submitting to it.
4. In deciding the issue, the Central Government would also have to take the following aspects into consideration –
a. whether the citizen has migrated to that country with the intention of making it his permanent home;
b. whether he has in fact taken up permanent residence in that country
A Goan would lose his Indian citizenship only if he has voluntarily registered his birth in Portugal. If the citizen manages to prove that the birth registration was involuntarily he will not stand to lose his Indian citizenship. Besides this a Goan could also prove that it was done without his knowledge, through fraud, forgery, etc. and in the event he proves it, it would not terminate his Indian Citizenship.
Therefore according to me, until and unless there is a decision of the Central Government that the Birth Registration was done voluntarily, it can’t divest a Goan of his Indian citizenship, merely because a Goan has registered his birth in Portugal.