Person Does Not Become 'Enemy' Under Rule 130 Of Defence Of India Rules Merely Because He Worked In Pakistan: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court ruled that simply moving to Pakistan for a job does not classify a person as an enemy under Rules 130 and 138 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, unless they were engaged in trade with an enemy.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Viju Abraham observed that, "only for the reason that the petitioner's father had gone to Pakistan in search of a job and worked there for a short period will not bring the petitioner’s father within the definition of ‘enemy’ under Rules 130 or 138 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 which was provided for a totally different purpose and the reliance placed on the said Rules is totally out of context and irrelevant to the facts of the case in hand." 

P. Ummer Koya purchased property in Parappanangadi from his father, Kunji Koya, and some nearby land from his relatives. When he attempted to pay the Basic Tax on this property, the village officer refused, citing orders from the Custodian of Enemy Property of India (CEPI) under the Enemy Property Act, 1968.

The refusal was based on a notification from the Ministry of Foreign Trade stating that all property defined as 'enemy property' under Rule 138 of the Defence of India Rules, held by an enemy as defined under Rule 130, would be vested in CEPI.

Ummer Koya argued that his family hailed from Parappanangadi in Malappuram and that his father had only worked in Karachi for a short period. He also faced police harassment, being accused of being a Pakistani citizen. Koya then approached the Central Government to determine his national status under the Citizenship Act. The Union Government declared that his father continued to be an Indian citizen, as he had not voluntarily acquired Pakistani citizenship.

The High Court observed that, "the petitioner's father will not come under the definition of 'enemy' as provided in the Defence of India Act, 1962 and the Defence of India Act, 1971, Defence of India Rules, 1971 and the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and the property held by him will not come within the definition of 'enemy property' as defined in the Enemy Property Act, 1968 and the Defence of India Rules, 1971. It is categorically found by the Government of India in Ext.P13 that the petitioner's father has never acquired the citizenship of Pakistan and continued throughout as a citizen of India."

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Cause Title: P Ummer Koya vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment