Kedar Pandey v. Narain Bikram Seth (AIR 1966 SC 160)

Facts of the Case

The case arose from the 1962 Bihar Legislative Assembly elections for the Ramnagar Constituency, contested by Kedar Pandey (Congress) and Narain Bikram Seth (Swatantra Party).

• Narain Bikram Seth was declared the winner.

• Kedar Pandey filed an election petition, alleging that Seth was born in Nepal and was therefore not qualified to be chosen as a candidate under Article 173 of the Indian Constitution (which requires Indian citizenship).

• The Election Tribunal initially voided Seth's election, but refused to declare Pandey as the winner.

• Both parties appealed to the Patna High Court, which upheld Seth's election, finding that he was an Indian citizen by birth through acquired domicile.

High Court Findings:

• The High Court noted that Narain Raja's (Seth'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 had also purchased properties in the name of his wife at various places within India.

The present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision.

Issue

1. Whether Narain Bikram Seth was a citizen of India under Article 5 of the Constitution.

2. Specifically, whether Narain Bikram Seth had acquired a domicile of choice in India before the commencement of the Constitution.

Rule

Conditions for Acquiring Domicile of Choice:

The acquisition of a domicile of choice requires two essential elements:

1. Physical presence in the new country (factum).

2. Intention to reside there indefinitely (animus manendi).

3. There must be a 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 the crucial element in establishing domicile of choice.

Held

The Supreme Court:

• Differentiated between Domicile of Origin and 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. [Image illustrating the two components of Domicile of Choice: physical presence and animus manendi]

• Cited key case law to define the intent required:

  • 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. The residence must be voluntary, chosen without external compulsion, and intended to be general and indefinite.

  • Doucet v. Geoghegan, 9 Ch. Div. 441: Relied on acts (like marriage inconsistent with French law) to prove that the testator had acquired an English domicile, indicating he considered England his permanent home.

  • Munro v. Munro, 7 Cl. 876: Established that the domicile of origin prevails until there is clear evidence of an intention to abandon it and acquire a new domicile.

• Burden of Proof: The Court clarified that the burden lies on the party asserting the change of domicile to prove that the domicile of origin has been abandoned.

• Conclusion: The Court found that Narain Raja had acquired a domicile of choice in India before the enforcement of the Indian Constitution (January 26, 1950). The overwhelming evidence of fixed and settled intention (property, political life, continuous residence) satisfied the animus manendi requirement.

• Consequently, Narain Raja fulfilled the requirements of Article 5(c) of the Constitution (which grants citizenship to those domiciled and ordinarily resident in India for at least five years before the Constitution's commencement).

• 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.