[Citizenship Act] Can person be deported without hearing application under Section 9(2)? Supreme Court to examine

The Supreme Court will examine whether a person can be deported from the country without deciding his application regarding citizenship under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act [Akil Piplodwala vs DSP and ors]..Section 9(2) provides that if any question arises as to whether, when or how any citizen of India has acquired the citizenship of another country, it shall be determined by leading evidence before the person's citizenship is terminated.A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala sought the response of the Gujarat government and the Union Home Ministry on a plea filed by a Gujarat resident apprehending deportation to Pakistan. The Court ordered status-quo and the matter is now likely to be heard in November. .The petitioner Akil Piplodwala, a resident of Godhra in Gujarat, had moved to Pakistan in 1976 and returned to India in 1983 to get married to an Indian citizen. In 1991, he permanently shifted back to India with a residential permit and has continued living in Gujarat since.Apprehending deportation, the petitioner moved a civil court to be declared an Indian citizen under Section 5(1)(C) of the Citizenship Act and sought protection from being sent back to Pakistan.In 1999, the civil judge partly allowed the plea and granted the protection while stating that it was not the competent court to rule on citizenship. The State government challenged this ruling 4 years later, and its appeal was allowed in July 2022 by the District Court which quashed the protection granted by civil court. The District Court's decision was upheld by the High Court in August prompting the present appeal before the apex court. .The petitioner submitted that the respondents had not placed any evidence on record or conducted any inquiry to show that the petitioner had voluntarily acquired citizenship of another country. The courts below had failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner was born and brought up in India and also did his primary education in India, it was contended. "It is submitted that the petitioner has spent more than substantial part of his life in India and the same fact was not appreciated by the Hon’ble High Court," the plea said..Senior Advocate IH Syed and advocates Taruna Singh Gohil, Prithu Parimal Pradhuman Gohil, Ranu Purohit, Alapati Sahithya Krishna, Ram Kishor Choudhary, and Amit Kumar Chaurasia appeared for the petitioner[Read Order]