Sri Shambhulal Yadav vs Sri V.R.P Ahuja, 1999

BACKGROUND

• SOCIAL BACKGROUND: Domicile plays a crucial role to know where the person resides and whether they have a permanent place to reside or not, even though they reside in a temporary place. Domicile represents a person’s connections for a long period of time, it shows their intention to reside permanently. Domicile has been classified into three types: 1. Domicile of Origin 2. Domicile of Choice and 3. Domicile by Operation of Law. The term domicile is defined under the precedent case of Pradeep V. The Union of India, Whieker v. Hume 1958 as mentioned in this case.
• LEGAL BACKGROUND: The case of Sri Shambhulal Yadav vs Sri V.R.P Ahuja, it was decided by the High Court of Orissa on 4^th February in the year 1999 CLT 533/1999(I) OLR 448, as mentioned in The Hindu Marriage act of 1955, Section 2(1)(C) talks about domicile and its applicability that acknowledges individuals from their religion and domicile. It explains that only individuals of India or the territories where the act can be applicable, it also mentions that not all residing like the Muslims, Christian, Parsi and Jews until they prove that they are not governed by customs or rituals.
• FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES: The petitioner of this case Shambhulal required a certificate of domicile from the Collector of Jharsuguda in Odisha where he resided. For his defence service requirements, as he was born in Bihar and has been permanently resided to Jharsuguda since his father was employed by the Railways in Odisha. A report was given by the Tahasildar for the proof of his residence but the Collector rejected to approve the certificate and stated that he must know the language Oriya, he must also know how to write and speak the language Oriya very fluently. It emerged due to the rejection for a certificate of domicile by the Collector of Jharsuguda on 25^th April, 1996. The decision by the Collector was passed by the Government resolution of 1949, where a person trying to get their domicile must be resided in a place for 12 years at least. The Court said that writing and speaking is not an essential for granting domicile, a person’s intention to reside can be considered a valid reason.

LEGAL ISSUES:

WHAT LEGAL QUESTIONS WERE RAISED?

1. To acquire a domicile of a place, is speaking and writing a language is essential?
2. Whether, studding the language till the mid-schooling is necessary to acquire domicile of Odisha?
3. What is the difference between Domicile and Residence of a place? Are both the same?
4. In such case, a Government Resolution or any other circular administrative can override or restrict the statutory rights or constitutional rights which is related to the domicile?
5. Can a Collector or District Authority holds any legal competence to determine domicile or residence?

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

ARGUEMENTS FROM BOTH THE SIDES

• Petitioner: The petitioner of this case argued that instead of being born in Bihar he has a right to reside in Jharsuguda, Odisha as he’s been living here form more than 12 years as his father was transferred here for work. He said that he had fulfilled the set required standards to acquire a domicile for himself but the Collector do not agree to this and rejected his certificate. After the court ruled in this favour, he also stated that the Collectors behave was inappropriate towards him and it effected his rights and equality.
• Respondent: In the arguments by respondent (Sri V.R.P Ahuja) were more over defending his own actions, he also stated that what he did was not wrong and also, he was not responsible for any of the statements that the Petitioner pleaded. He said that his certificate issued by the headmaster, where the plaintiff completed by class 9.

COURTS REASONING:

HOW DID THE COURT INTERPRET THE LAW?

• In this case the court interpreted that the Petitioner had all the necessary documents which were enough as evidence, the petitioner submitted his marksheets stating that he had passed the third language Oriya. The court also made sure that the petitioner was qualified enough as required for the third language, the court also made sure that the respondent followed all the details properly so that the future procedures are fair and does not harm anyone. At the end, the Court stated that the respondent was responsible for not examining the documents of the petitioner. At the end, the court in the favour for the petitioner. In the final judgement the court mentioned Dr Pradeep vs The Union of India by saying that ‘Language, religion and Caste of one person have no nexus with one’s permanent place to stay’.^[1] Also, in the precedent case of Lord Cranworth in Whieker vs Hume 1958 the court explained the definition for domicile.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

• In the case of Sri Shambhulal Yadav vs Sri V.R.P Ahuja, the court held that any valid documents and education documents can be considered but it also stated that is should be certified by relevant higher authorities. The respondent of the case later on should interpret these laws within the criteria. And it is not necessary that a person a get a domicile of a place if they have been born there or domicile of origin, but they can get it if there is an intention to reside.
• In this, the High Court interpreted that the domicile of state within India cannot be a separate legal category under the Constitution of India, and there is only one category of domicile within the territory of India.
• This judgement also recognised the difference between a certificate for domicile (legal status) and certificate of residence. It also stated that, proficiency in Oriya language or any other state language cannot be a valid condition for a permanent residence or any domicile.
• The ratio also guarantees that no administrative authority or any government authority can impose any exceptional or extra-legal tests, such as language or cultural test to identify the domicile of a person.

OBITER DICTA:

• In this, the case observed that in India it only recognizes one domicile which is domicile of the entire territory of India and there is no separate or distint domiciles for an state. It ensures that the administrative authorities can keep a check on verified residence or nativity, but the question related to the legal domicile can only be determined by the court itself.
• It additionally, stated the languages or any cultural identity is not in the position for granting domicile or residence to a person. In the year 1949, Orissa Government Resolution stating that the requirement of the Oriya language is not necessary and every citizen of India has a right to reside or settle anywhere in India, without facing any linguistic barriers.
• In the end the court also noted the whether the domicile of a person depends on its own intention to reside in a place permanently irrespective of its birthplace or language. The rigidity of the bureaucrats cannot defeat the claim for residence while being genuine along with fairness by the authorities in such matters.

SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPLIFICATION

WHY IS THE CASE IMPORTANT FOR FAMILY LAW?

• The case of Sri Shambhulal Yadav vs. Sri V.R.P Ahuja, 1999 plays a significance role in domicile and its need for the verification of the documents for the legal proceedings, it highlights that fair, evidence and correct explanation of the documents should be given. This case also stated about a domicile of a person, whether he/she is born on that particular area or not but still they can still get domicile of that place even if they are not born there but stayed there for more than 12 years and have a intention to stay there in the future.
• It reinforce the interpretation of the section 2(1) (c) and section 2(j) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states that domicile is used to define jurisdiction of the matrimonial proceedings.
• It also forbids the misuse for the verification of the domicile in matrimonial, inheritance, or adoption matters that ensures the intention to reside which is essential factor only.

LEGAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT:

• In this case the legal impact is that no one can get a domicile of the place until there is valid evidences and documents to proof our intentions to stay in that area and it must be more than 12 years. The social impact of this case is that the government rule in the favour of the plaintiff, where it can be seen, that legal justice is provided to anyone and no language, religion and caste is required to claim the domicile of the place.
• This case showcase that how domicile/residence certificates that are issued by the authorities of the state across India, specially for public employment and for education purpose. Due to this, it discourages the cultural and linguistic discrimination in the state administrative processes.
• It helps to strengthen Article 19(1)(e), it gives freedom to reside and settle in any region or part of India and helps to prevent barriers that are state-specific. It helps to promote an uniform treatment for the citizens of India irrespective of their origin or mother tongue.

SUMMARY:

In Sri Shambhulal Yadav vs Sri V.R.P. Ahuja 1999, the High Court of Orissa stated that a language of a person cannot be a reason for granting a certificate of domicile. The petitioner who was residing in Odisha for the last 12 years, was repudiated for certificate as per not knowing the language Oriya. The Court ruled, stating that the domicile of a person depends only on its own residence and their intention to reside in that place permanently, nor on the language or their origin. This also struck down the Orissa Government Resolution which came into 1949 as unconstitutional and directed by the collector for the issue regarding the certificate, as it reinforce equality and their rights to settle anywhere all over India.

REFERENCES:

1. Sri Shambhulal Yadav vs. Sri V.R.P. Ahuja
2. manupatrafast.in/citation/citation.aspx?manu=MANU/OR/0114/1999

[1] Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others Vs The Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1421. https://www.manupatrafast.in/TempPDF/MANU-OR-0114-1999-OLR20250401223942.pdf