The acquisition of Indian citizenship is governed by the Citizenship Act, 1955, a piece of parliamentary legislation enacted under the enabling provisions of the Constitution of India. Section 5 of this Act lays down specific pathways for certain categories of individuals to become citizens of India through the process of registration. Among these, Section 5(1)(a) caters to persons of Indian origin who are ordinarily resident in India and have met a stipulated period of residence, along with other qualifying criteria. This article delves into the role of the District Collector in this registration process, particularly focusing on the nature of the inquiry they undertake and the implications for the rejection of citizenship applications.

Section 5(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, serves as a crucial provision for individuals with historical ties or long-term connections to India to formalize their citizenship status. The categories eligible under this subsection include not only persons of Indian origin with the requisite residency but also those married to Indian citizens, minor children of Indian citizens, individuals whose parents are Indian citizens, and former citizens of independent India who have maintained continuous residence for a specific period prior to application. The underlying objective of this provision is to provide a structured legal avenue for citizenship for those who have demonstrably established close and enduring links with the nation through ancestry, familial ties, or prolonged habitation.

The procedural framework for applying for citizenship by registration under Section 5(1)(a) is elucidated through the Citizenship Rules, 2009, particularly Rule 7. This rule designates the District Collector, within whose jurisdiction the applicant ordinarily resides, as the initial receiving and processing authority for such applications. The responsibilities entrusted to the Collector at this primary stage are multifaceted. They are tasked with receiving and formally acknowledging the applications, ensuring that the applications are complete in all respects, and undertaking a preliminary scrutiny of the submitted documents to verify their authenticity and relevance. Furthermore, the Collector is mandated to conduct initial inquiries to ascertain the applicant's prima facie eligibility based on the conditions stipulated under Rule 9 of the Citizenship Rules.

While the District Collector plays this pivotal role at the entry point of the citizenship registration process, it is crucial to recognize that the ultimate authority to grant Indian citizenship rests solely with the Central Government, primarily exercised through the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Collector's function, therefore, is primarily that of assessment and recommendation rather than final adjudication.

Rule 9 of the Citizenship Rules outlines the specific conditions that the registering authority (acting under the delegated powers of the Central Government) must be satisfied about before registering an individual under Section 5. These conditions encompass crucial aspects such as the applicant's Indian origin (where applicable), the nature and extent of their connections with India, their genuine intention to make India their permanent home, their good character, and their willingness to take the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India.

To effectively discharge their responsibility in the initial assessment, the Collector is empowered to conduct inquiries as deemed necessary. These inquiries can take various forms, including formal investigations, seeking confidential reports from relevant agencies, or even drawing upon their personal knowledge of the applicant or the local circumstances.

The significance of the Collector's inquiry in the context of Section 5(1)(a) was underscored in the landmark case of S.K. Hakimuddin v. Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, decided by Justice Sinha at the Calcutta High Court on November 22, 1960. In this case, the court specifically addressed the rejection of a citizenship registration application. The judgment emphasized that before registering a person under Section 5(1)(a), the Collector bears the responsibility of satisfying themselves concerning the conditions explicitly laid down in Rule 9 of the Citizenship Rules.

This satisfaction necessitates a proper inquiry into aspects such as the applicant's Indian origin, the depth of their connections with India, their bona fide intention to permanently settle in the country, their moral character, and their readiness to undertake the oath of allegiance. The implication of this ruling is that a rejection of an application should be predicated on a lack of satisfaction regarding these stipulated conditions, which in turn necessitates a reasonable and relevant inquiry.

Conclusion:
The District Collector occupies a vital position in the initial stages of the citizenship registration process under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. While they do not possess the final authority to grant or refuse citizenship, their role in conducting preliminary inquiries to ascertain an applicant's prima facie eligibility based on the conditions outlined in Rule 9 of the Citizenship Rules is paramount.

The S.K. Hakimuddin case serves as a crucial judicial pronouncement, emphasizing the Collector's obligation to undertake a proper inquiry to satisfy themselves regarding these conditions before forwarding the application with their recommendations.

Ultimately, the discretionary power to grant or refuse citizenship rests with the Central Government, which undertakes a comprehensive evaluation based on the statutory framework and the reports received, including that of the Collector. While the Collector's initial assessment carries significant weight, it is not the final determinant.

Principles of administrative justice necessitate that any rejection of a citizenship application by the Central Government is based on valid and justifiable grounds, informed by a thorough process that includes the initial inquiry conducted by the Collector. The revisionary powers vested in the Central Government under Section 15 of the Act also serve as a safeguard against potential errors or arbitrariness in the decision-making process. Therefore, while the Collector's inquiry is a crucial step, it operates within a larger framework where the final decision-making authority and responsibility lie with the Central Government.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565