KEDAR PANDEY V. NARAIN BIKRAM SETH AIR 1966 SC 160
FACTS
Kedar Pandey and Narain Bikram Seth contested in the 1962 Bihar Legislative Assembly elections from the Ramnagar Constituency, representing Congress and Swatantra Party respectively.
The nomination papers of both candidates were accepted without objections. After the poll, Narain Bikram Seth was declared the winner.
Kedar Pandey filed an election petition alleging that Narain Bikram Seth, being born in Nepal, was not qualified to be chosen as a candidate according to Article 173 of the Indian Constitution, which requires citizenship.
The election tribunal declared Narain Bikram Seth's election void but refused to declare Kedar Pandey as the rightful winner.
Both parties appealed to the High Court of Patna, which upheld Narain Bikram Seth's election, stating that he was an Indian citizen by birth:
The High Court found that Narain Raja’s activities and investments indicated his intention to permanently reside in India. His extensive property holdings, political engagements, and familial ties to the region reinforced this conclusion. His continuous residence in Ramnagar and active participation in local affairs demonstrated a commitment to making India his home.
Raja also purchased properties in the name of his wife at various places within India.
Hence, The present appeal against HC decision before the SC.
ISSUE
Whether Narain Bikram Seth was a citizen of India under Article 5 of the Constitution.
Whether Narain Bikram Seth had acquired domicile of choice in India.
RULE
Conditions for Changing Domicile:
Physical presence in the new country.
Intention to reside there indefinitely (animus manendi).
Clear and fixed intention to abandon the domicile of origin and adopt the new domicile as the principal and permanent home.
The Court emphasized that the intention of permanent residence, or animus manendi, is crucial in establishing domicile of choice.
HELD
Court differentiated between Domicile of Origin vs. Domicile of Choice:
Domicile of Origin: Automatically acquired at birth based on the domicile of the person upon whom the individual is legally dependent (usually the father).
Domicile of Choice: Acquired by residing in a new country with the intention to remain there indefinitely.
Udny v. Udny, L.R. 1 H.L. 441: Lord Westbury clarified that the only intention required to change domicile is the intention of permanent residence. There must be voluntary residence chosen without external compulsion, and the residence must be intended to be general and indefinite.
Doucet v. Geoghegan, 9 Ch. Div. 441: The Court of Appeal decided that the testator had acquired an English domicile, relying on acts such as marriages conducted in England. These actions were inconsistent with French law, indicating that the testator considered himself domiciled in England.
Munro v. Munro, 7 Cl. 876: Emphasized that domicile of origin prevails until there is clear evidence of an intention to abandon it and acquire a new domicile.
The court concluded that Narain Raja had acquired a domicile of choice in India before the enforcement of the Indian Constitution. The evidence demonstrated that Narain Raja had a fixed and settled intention (i.e., animus manendi) to make India his permanent home, thus fulfilling the requirements of Article 5(c) of the Constitution, which establishes citizenship based on domicile and residency.
Consequently, the High Court's finding that Narain Raja was a citizen of India at the relevant time was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.
The Court also clarified that the burden lies on the party asserting the change of domicile to prove that the domicile of origin has been abandoned.