Mohd. Raza Dabstani Vs State of Bombay and Ors

1. Case Title & Citation

Case Name: Mohd. Raza Dabstani Vs State of Bombay and Ors

Citations: AIR 1966 SC 1436: (1966) MPLJ 1051: (1966) 3 SCR 441

Case No.: Appeal (civil) 289 of 1964

2. Court Name & Bench

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Division Bench

Judges:

A.K. Sarkar, J.

J.R. Mudholkar, J.

The ruling came from Judge Sarkar.

3. Date of Judgment

28/01/1966

4. Parties Involved

Appellant

Mohd. Raza Dabstani, born in Iran, came to India when he was young, so he stayed there many years because of that long stay, he later applied for Indian citizenship using rules about home and living location found in the country’s Constitution.

Respondents

In the case of State of Bombay et al., state officials among them the Police Commissioner of Bombay and representatives from the Union of India classified the appellant as a non-citizen consequently, they initiated deportation procedures based on the Foreigners Act.

5. Facts of the Case

The appellant, from Yezd in Iran, arrived in India at thirteen traveling with his mother’s brother, an Iranian citizen. While the files don’t mention what travel papers were used, entry was confirmed. Upon arrival, he settled in Bombay started schooling first, then shifted to employment afterward.

In January, prior to turning eighteen, the appellant acquired an Iranian passport then went to Iraq on a religious visit. Although underage, the document showed he had an official Iranian ID meaning Tehran still treated him as a citizen. Once back in India, authorities listed him under the Registration of Foreigners Rules as a national of Iran. That listing officially classified him as a non-citizen during his stay.

In 2015, the appellant was granted a residence permit under the Foreigners Order, allowing temporary stays in India. The extensions followed upon his repeated requests, one after another. Each time, he stated clearly that he held Iranian nationality. By December, however, authorities rejected his last renewal plea. Instead of approval, he got a directive under the Foreigner’s Act exit the country.

On December, rather than follow the deportation directive, the appellant initiated legal proceedings at the Bombay City Civil Court. While claiming recognition as an Indian national per Article of the Constitution, he requested a court order halting officials from classifying him as non-resident. Despite this, his case was turned down. Following that setback, an appeal reached the Bombay High Court this too failed. Later, permission granted directly allowed entry into litigation before the Supreme Court.

He argued that although born in Iran, he’d settled in India before November when Article of the Constitution took force and lived there regularly for over five years prior. So, the key issue became whether he showed clear intent to shift his permanent home from Iran to India.

6. Issues Raised

Did the appellant gain Indian residency prior to November, as stated in Article of India’s Constitution?

Does living in India for many years alone prove a shift in permanent home?

Can someone hold Indian citizenship while identifying as a citizen of a different nation?

Did the applicant’s actions like seeking a passport, visas, or citizenship show a clear plan to stay in India for good? While applying for such documents, did he act like someone settling down there permanently?

7. Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

Long Residence as Evidence of Domicile:

The appellant claimed he’d lived in India non-stop, aside from a brief trip to Iraq. Despite this absence, his extended stay starting during childhood could indicate a clear plan to settle there permanently. Instead of temporary links, he highlighted deep local connections, work history, followed by managing a restaurant. These aspects reflect ongoing engagement with the community and economy.

Lack of Intention to Retain Iranian Domicile:

He argued these rules using an Iranian passport or signing up as a non-resident were just legal requirements, not proof he wanted to stay tied to Iran.

Right to Citizenship under Article 5:

The appellant stated that Article granted citizenship automatically to those living in India for five years before the Constitution began. Because he had stayed in India throughout this period, he maintained his eligibility under the rule.

Youth and Minority:

The appellant argued that since he arrived in India while still underage, past steps like getting travel documents or enrolling as an Iranian citizen shouldn’t carry strong weight. Once he reached legal age, however, his behaviour showed growing ties to India, suggesting intent to settle there permanently.

Respondents’ Arguments

Residence ≠ Domicile:

The court claimed domicile involves more than just living somewhere it demands intent to stay indefinitely. Staying a long time alone isn’t enough, especially if actions don’t back it up.

Express Declarations as Iranian National:

The appellant once he reached adulthood continued to identify as an Iranian citizen on multiple occasions

Acquired then utilized a travel document from Iran

Enrolled under international status

Submitted home construction requests using Iranian citizenship details (next phase)

Sought citizenship only later in life

Such moves clearly went against his statement about living in India.

Possibility of Naturalisation:

The court claimed that wanting to shift national identity meant one might have pursued citizenship via the Naturalisation Act yet he didn’t apply. This omission suggested no real desire earlier to adopt Indian status.

Citizenship Requires Exclusive National Allegiance:

The respondents stated that someone from India can’t also be a national of another country at the same time because the appellant had repeatedly claimed to be an Iranian national, this ruled out any right to Indian citizenship based on residence.

8. Judgment / Final Decision

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal while backing rulings from earlier courts.

Key Findings:

The appellant did not meet the obligation to show he held Indian domicile prior to November.

Residence alone is not sufficient to prove domicile.

His behaviour, along with repeated claims of being a citizen of Iran, clearly indicated no intent to settle permanently in India.

As he lacked Indian domicile, eligibility for citizenship under Article of the Constitution did not apply. Because residency status was absent, constitutional rights related to nationality could not be claimed. Without local ties, access to citizen privileges remained restricted by law.

He stayed a citizen of Iran, governed by the Foreigners Act.

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

Concept of Domicile under Constitutional Jurisprudence

The court repeated its view: domicile requires two key parts

Residence (factum)

Desire to stay indefinitely (intent to remain)

Although the applicant met the five-year residency condition beforehand, yet he did not prove intent the crucial second part.

Burden of Proof

The Court pointed out that the responsibility rests fully with the individual arguing for a new domicile. Since original domicile Iranian, here is hard to alter, proof of change needs to be strong and well supported. That kind of proof was missing, according to the judges.

Assessing behaviour before versus after

Use of Iranian Passport (1945)

Despite reaching adulthood, the individual continued using an Iranian travel document listing him as a citizen of Iran though he had gained majority status earlier. While holding this official paper, he identified formally under that nationality without change.

Registration as Iranian National (1946)

He voluntarily registered as a foreigner, further confirming his position as an Iranian national.

Residential Permits and Applications (Post 1950)

In every submission later on, he always stated being a citizen of Iran aiming for short term stay.

Naturalisation Application (1957)

His citizenship request also listed him as Iranian, which weakens the claim that he saw himself as Indian through residence.

The court noted someone claiming citizenship through residence can’t simultaneously uphold allegiance to another country yet must choose one status.

Supporting Precedent

The Court referred to State Trading Corporation v. CTO, where it was established that every citizen is a national of the country, though not every national hold citizenship. Importantly, someone from India can’t at the same time hold nationality under a different state.

Using this idea, the court pointed out that since the appellant often stated he was Iranian, therefore he couldn’t say he was a citizen of India.

Economic actions plus business operations lack proof

The court wasn’t convinced by the appellant’s argument about running a restaurant. Because operating such a business alone doesn’t show permanent settlement intent. Also, the father had managed enterprises in India for years yet never gained Indian domicile from it.

Try getting a residence document

The appellant’s unclear actions became obvious when he tried getting a domicile certificate from a magistrate only to have it denied. His effort seemed driven by practical needs, yet did not clearly show real intent to stay there permanently.

Lack of proof indicating intent to keep

The court determined the appellant had strong connections to Iran specifically through frequent communication and shared affiliations

Staying in touch often with his mom also with his siblings

He asked his dad to come to India so they could work together

Wishing to visit Iran due to private motivations

Such links implied his emotional or official bonds to Iran remained intact.

Conclusion of Legal Reasoning

Because the appellant didn’t show behaviour matching a firm decision to settle permanently in India earlier, the Court decided he wasn’t eligible for citizenship under Article.

10. Conclusion / Observations

The ruling in Mohd. Raza Dabstani v. State of Bombay set a key precedent on domicile linked citizenship within India’s constitutional framework; it emphasized strict conditions for establishing new domicile. While physical presence matters, intent and legal loyalty play larger roles citizenship isn’t tied just to where someone lives. This case clarified that shifting domicile demands clear proof beyond mere stay in a place, underscoring how law treats belonging. Courts looked at actions showing permanent settlement purpose rather than temporary status.

The Supreme Court’s logic shows care when assessing domicile claims, particularly if someone still maintains strong links abroad. Yet the ruling highlights that what people say about themselves must match their behaviour this alignment matters greatly in deciding legal residence.

This case adds to legal understanding about citizenship, nationality, and migration highlighting how constitutions were interpreted when the Republic first began. It can help learners and scholars see how judges weigh facts alongside assumed truths when deciding who counts as a citizen.

Bibliography

1. Mohd Raza Dabstani v State of Bombay AIR 1966 SC 1436; (1966) 3 SCR 441 (Supreme Court of India) (Judgment 28 January 1966).
2. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd v Commercial Tax Officer A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1811; [1964] 4 S.C.R. 99 (Supreme Court of India).
3. Constitution of India 1950, art 5.
4. Foreigners Act 1946 (India) (Act No. 31 of 1946).
5. Registration of Foreigners Rules 1939 (India).
6. Foreigners Order 1938 (India).
7. Naturalization Act 1926, 16 & 17 Geo. 5 c. 56 (UK).
8. Supreme Court of India, Mohd Raza Dabstani v State of Bombay (Judgment, 28 January 1966) JUDIS http://judis.nic.in accessed 19 November 2025.
9. CourtKutchehry, Mohd Raza Dabstani v State of Bombay https://www.courtkutchehry.com accessed 19 November 2025.