2021 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 3(1) part of their family was presently in Pakistan 132 was used to support such a conclusion, even ignoring petitions to the High Commission pleading for permanent resettlement permits. Gender intersected with domicile in many ways — prior to the promulgation of the Constitution, the domicile of women was supposed to follow that of their father or husband. The migration of fathers or husbands, therefore, would and did deprive women of their nationality even though they had not moved. 133 Interestingly, even a clarification issued by the Government on the citizenship of women married to Pakistanis assumed the woman would be Muslim — the note very clearly pointed out that Muslim marriage, unlike Hindu marriage, is a contract, not a sacrament.134 After the introduction of the passport system between India and Pakistan in 1952, this became even more complicated. As per Citizenship Rules issued under the Citizenship Act 1955, a foreign passport was to be considered ‘conclusive proof of [a person having] voluntarily acquired the citizenship of [a foreign] country’. 135 This led to ridiculous situations — people were told to acquire a Pakistani passport by the High Commission of India in order to go back to India and apply for Indian citizenship; once there, they found that their passport raised an insuperable objection to their citizenship! 136 Through the 1950s, fears of ‘undesirable Pakistan nationals’ coming into India plagued passport and visa policies, creating the restrictive regime that still exists. 137 The Supreme Court of India was often not immune to using religion. ‘Intention to migrate’ was interpreted differently when talking of Hindus and Sikhs via-à-vis Muslims who showed (or were, as minors or persons of unsound mind incapable 132 Habib Ahmad Rizvi v The Crown [1950] Cri L J 817. Here, the fact that the petitioner’s mother-in-law and daughter resided in Karachi was seen as sufficient to assume he had moved to Karachi with the intention of migration even though the petitioner argued that the rest of his family (including his wife and other children) continued to reside in India and that he had only returned, in September 1948, on a temporary permit because he was informed at Karachi that a permit for resettlement would take a long time to arrange. The High Court of Bombay acknowledged various problems with the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner but claimed that, according to precedent, it had no power to interfere with orders passed by the Commissioner in its executive capacity. 133 Mst Allah Bandi v Union of India [1954] AIR All 456. In 1957, a press note was issued by the Government of India that made the legal position on married women clear — a woman married prior to 26 January 1950 would cease to be a citizen of India if she married a Pakistani national or someone who moved to Pakistan; however, post-1950, she would continue to be an Indian citizen until she voluntarily gave up Indian citizenship (or took up a Pakistani passport): Question Regarding Nationality of Indian Women Married to Pakistani Nationals (Archived at 41 (97)/56-PSP, National Archives of India). Copy on hand with the author. 134 ibid. 135 Citizenship Rules 1956 (India) sch III, r 3. The full provision is The fact that a citizen of India has obtained on any date a passport from the Government of any other country shall be conclusive proof of his having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country before that date. 136 The constitutionality of sch III, r 3 was challenged in multiple high courts in India. The Rajasthan High Court (in Ghaurul Hasan v State of Rajasthan [1958] AIR Raj 172) and the Madras High Court (in Mohammed Usman v State of Madras [1961] AIR Mad 129) held that the rule was constitutional. The Allahabad High Court, however, held that this was unconstitutional, on the grounds that merely acquiring a passport did not mean that there was an intention to give up Indian citizenship. 137 Overstay of Pak Nationals—Policy Regarding (Archived at 15(48)/56 PSP, National Archives of India). The phrase is taken from a note in Jawaharlal Nehru’s own hand at the beginning of the file. Copy on hand with the author. 228