Case Analysis of Rasheed Hussain V.

Union of India

Submitted By

Shivani Shreya
20201BAL0107
Section 2
BA.LLB (Hons.)

Submitted to
Asst. Prof. SOL-
Ms. Malini Venugopal

School of Law
Presidency University
May 2024
Rasheed Hassan v. Union of India

INTRODUCTION:
A minor of Indian birth was abandoned by his father when the latter migrated to Pakistan after the
partition. Despite his continued residence in India, where he voted and was elected to political
office after having become of age, the erstwhile minor was detained in 1965 pursuant to an order
issued under the Foreigner's Internment Order, 1962, on the contention that he was International
Lawyer, a Pakistani national.

On his petition challenging the arrest, the High Court recently ordered his release. Citing Cheshire
in Private International Law, the Court held that while the rule that the domicile of an infant
follows that of his father is generally laid down in absolute terms, it is subject to an exception in
the case of abandonment of the infant when the father changes his domicile.

This landmark case grappled with the complex issue of determining the nationality of a child born
to an Indian mother and a Pakistani father. It presented a unique conundrum regarding which
country's laws should govern the child's nationality status, given the intersecting factors of
birthplace, parental nationality, and domicile.

In essence, the case revolved around the fundamental question of where the child's allegiance lay
and which legal framework should safeguard their rights and obligations. The intricacies of conflict
of laws came to the forefront as the judiciary navigated through a maze of legal principles and
international implications.

At its core, the Rasheed Hasan case embodies the essence of conflict of laws, also known as
private international law. This branch of law addresses situations where legal issues transcend
national boundaries, necessitating a harmonious resolution amid differing legal systems.

Against this backdrop, the case unfolded with profound implications for the child's future, as well
as broader implications for legal jurisprudence in India. The Supreme Court's deliberations delved
into the intricacies of domicile, nationality, and public policy, seeking to strike a balance between
competing interests while upholding principles of justice and fairness.

The judgment rendered in the Rasheed Hasan case reverberated beyond its immediate context,
setting a precedent for future cases grappling with similar conflicts of laws. By affirming the
child's Indian nationality based on the principles of jus soli and maternal lineage, the court
underscored the importance of birthplace and maternal nationality in determining citizenship.

Furthermore, the case underscored India's commitment to safeguarding the rights of individuals,
particularly vulnerable populations such as children, in the face of complex legal challenges. It
exemplified the judiciary's role in interpreting and applying legal principles to ensure equitable
outcomes in a globalized world.
FACTS:

1. Rashid Hassan Roomi was born to Indian parents in the district of Fatehpur and had been
living in India since birth. His father, Syed Siddiq Hasan, migrated to Pakistan in 1948,
leaving behind the minor Rashid Roomi in India.

2. Rashid Roomi has been living in Kasba Kara Jahanabad District Fatehpur since his father's
migration. He owns considerable cultivable land and practices as a lawyer in the area.

3. Rashid Roomi contested local elections in 1958 and 1964, and was elected as the Chairman
of the Town Area Committee. He also obtained an India-Pakistan passport before 1961.

4. In 1965, Rashid Roomi was arrested under the Foreigners' (Internment) Order, 1962 on the
grounds that his father was a Pakistani national. The order stated that Rashid Roomi, "a
Pakistan National", be arrested and confined in the District Jail.

5. Rashid Roomi challenged this order, arguing that despite his father's migration to Pakistan,
he himself has been living in India since birth and is an Indian citizen. The key issue was
whether Rashid Roomi's domicile and citizenship automatically changed when his father
migrated to Pakistan.

ISSUES:

In the case of Rasheed Hassan v. Union of India, the issues raised include the case involves

 Which country's laws should govern the child's nationality?

 Should the child be considered an Indian national, given the circumstances of their birth
and parental affiliations?

 How does the principle of conflict of laws apply in resolving this matter, particularly
concerning domicile, birthplace, and parental nationality?

LEGISLATION:

The legislation used in the case of Rasheed Hassan v. Union of India primarily includes:

1. Foreigners Internment Order, 1962: This order was used to detain individuals, including the
petitioner, based on their nationality or perceived affiliation with foreign countries. The
order was amended in 1965 to include additional categories of individuals who could be
detained.

2. Defense of India Rules, 1971: These rules were enacted to provide a framework for the
management of foreign affairs and defense during times of war or national emergency.
They include provisions for the detention of individuals deemed to be a threat to national
security.
 3. Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952: This act allows the Central Government to establish
commissions to investigate specific issues or allegations. The act was used in the case to
constitute a Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations against the Chief Minister of
the State.

4. Constitution of India: The case also involved the interpretation of various provisions of the
Indian Constitution, including Article 74, which deals with the relationship between the
President and the Council of Ministers, and Article 356, which allows the President to
impose President's Rule on a state.

ANALYSIS:

The case of Rashid Hassan Roomi v. Union of India raises complex questions around the concepts
of domicile, citizenship, and the legal status of individuals whose family ties cross national
borders. The central issue revolved around whether Rashid Roomi's domicile and citizenship
automatically changed when his father migrated to Pakistan in 1948, leaving the minor Rashid
behind in India.

Rashid Roomi was born to Indian parents in Fatehpur, India, and had lived in the country since
birth. However, after his father's migration to Pakistan, the Indian authorities arrested Rashid in
1965 under the Foreigners' (Internment) Order, 1962, on the grounds that he was a "Pakistan
National" due to his father's nationality.

This raises the fundamental question of whether an individual's domicile and citizenship are
inherently tied to that of their parents, especially when the child has been residing in the country of
birth since infancy. The case law cited in the search results suggests that the courts have grappled
with this issue before, with varying interpretations.

For instance, in the case of Karimunnisa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court held that the
domicile of a minor child does not automatically change with the change in domicile of the father.
Similarly, in Allah Bandi vs. Govt of Union of India, the court ruled that the citizenship of a person
cannot be determined solely based on the citizenship of their parents.

However, in Mohammad Umar vs. State and State vs. Abdul Hamid, the courts took the view that
the domicile of a minor child does in fact change with the change in domicile of the father. This
apparent lack of consistency in judicial precedents highlights the complexity of the legal issues at
hand.

In the case of Rashid Roomi, the key question was whether his lifelong residence in India, his
participation in local elections, and his possession of an India-Pakistan passport prior to 1961 were
sufficient to establish his Indian citizenship, despite his father's migration to Pakistan. The court
ultimately ruled in Rashid Roomi's favor, setting him free from detention and recognizing his
Indian citizenship.
This decision underscores the importance of considering the individual's personal circumstances
and ties to the country, rather than relying solely on the citizenship status of their parents. It
suggests that the courts are willing to take a more nuanced approach in determining citizenship,
especially in cases where the individual has established deep roots and a clear sense of belonging
to the country of residence.

The Rashid Roomi case also touches on broader questions of national identity, belonging, and the
legal implications of familial ties that transcend national borders. In an increasingly globalized
world, where migration and cross-border movements are commonplace, such cases highlight the
need for a flexible and contextual approach to citizenship and domicile laws.

Furthermore, the case raises concern about the potential for arbitrary detention and the
infringement of individual rights based on presumed nationality or familial ties. The court's
decision to release Rashid Roomi from detention can be seen as an affirmation of the fundamental
rights and due process protections enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Furthermore, the Rashid Hassan Roomi v. Union of India case underscores the nuanced and
complex legal issues surrounding citizenship, domicile, and the rights of individuals whose
personal circumstances do not neatly fit within the traditional frameworks of nationality. The
court's ruling in favor of Rashid Roomi serves as an important precedent, emphasizing the need to
consider the unique circumstances of each case and to uphold the principles of justice and
individual rights.

CONCLUSION:

In the intricate tapestry of conflict of laws, the Rasheed Hasan v. Union of India (UOI) case stands
as a beacon illuminating the path towards equitable justice. Through a nuanced analysis of
domicile, birthplace, and parental nationality, the judiciary forged a jurisprudential narrative that
resonated with principles of fairness and constitutional ethos.

By prioritizing the child's domicile – the true essence of their roots and identity – the court
affirmed India as the locus of their allegiance and legal affiliation. The invocation of jus soli
underscored the sanctity of birthplace, ensuring that the child's nationality remained tethered to the
Indian soil, notwithstanding paternal affiliations.

The case of Rasheed Hassan v. Union of India revolves around the detention of the petitioner,
Rasheed Hassan Roomi, under the Foreigners Internment Order, 1962. The Supreme Court of India
delivered its judgment on December 12, 1965, in response to a petition filed under Section 491 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the validity of the detention.

The petitioner, Rasheed Hassan Roomi, was born in India to Indian parents and had been living in
the country since his birth. His father, Syed Siddiq Hasan, migrated to Pakistan in 1948, leaving
behind the petitioner and his younger siblings in India. Despite this, the petitioner was detained
under the Foreigners Internment Order, 1962, on October 13, 1965, and was confined in the district
jail, Fatehpur.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, considered the facts of the case and the legal implications of
the detention. The Court observed that the petitioner's permanent home was in Jahanabad, where he
owned cultivable land and practiced as a registered Homoeopathic Doctor. He had also been
actively involved in local politics, contesting elections and holding public offices. The Court noted
that the petitioner's father had migrated to Pakistan, but this did not necessarily make the petitioner
a foreigner.

Moreover, the judgment in Rasheed Hasan case exemplified the judiciary's unwavering
commitment to safeguarding individual rights amidst the complexities of cross-border familial ties.
Through its equitable resolution, the court not only resolved a legal conundrum but also reaffirmed
the primacy of justice and fairness in conflict of laws jurisprudence.

In essence, the Rasheed Hasan case serves as a poignant reminder of the pivotal role of domicile in
navigating the intricacies of conflict of laws. It underscores the importance of grounding legal
determinations in the foundational ties that bind individuals to their homeland, ensuring that justice
prevails even amidst the complexities of transnational legal landscapes.
The Court further observed that the petitioner's detention was based on the assumption that he was
a foreigner due to his father's migration. However, the Court held that this assumption was
incorrect and that the petitioner was an Indian citizen by birth and had been living in the country
since his birth. The Court concluded that the detention was illegal and ordered the petitioner's
immediate release.

The case of Rasheed Hassan v. Union of India highlights the importance of correctly identifying
and classifying individuals based on their citizenship status. The Supreme Court's judgment
emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of the facts and legal implications in such cases to
ensure that individuals are not wrongly detained or deprived of their rights. The case serves as a
reminder of the importance of upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens,
regardless of their family backgrounds or circumstances.