as the work congruent to law. Not to confer to the petitioners with citizenship stating that it was not clear whether the father was from home country or a foreigner is against Article 13 (1), (2) and Article 20 (1) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063, as well. It is seen that in the aforementioned Article 13 (1), provision that all the citizens are equal before law and in Sub-article (2), provision no citizen is supposed to be discriminated based on gender has been made. Similarly, in Article 20 (1) it has been accepted as a fundamental right that a woman is not supposed to be discriminated simply because she is a woman; in this condition, although it has been justified from her citizenship certificate of Nepal that the petitioners’ mother Anita Sapkota is a citizen of Nepal, the work of not issuing the citizenship certificate of Nepal by showing the base that it was not traced whether the father was from home country or a foreigner, it is seen that the petitioners’ mother was discriminated on the ground of just being a woman; hence, the aforementioned work of the opponent is seen to be like that of defeating the constitutional provision. Court, instead of helping in friendly manner in the sensitive issue such as citizenship, the opponents are found to have made the petitioners lingering by refusing to confer citizenship certificate, pretending this and that. Such work cannot be considered as responsible and legal work. Hence, petitioners’ mother has possessed the citizenship of Nepal and their father has been disappearing; hence, there is no obstacle present in conferring citizenship by mother’s name and mandamus has already been issued before this by this Court on this issue; but, even though all the District Administration Offices are seen to have been circulated, the work of not conferring the petitioners with the citizenship by mother’s name is unjust; hence, it is decided that mandamus is supposed to be issued on the name of the opponents to immediately confer them with the citizenship by mother’s name. Moreover, though the condition that it has been explained in the affidavit of the opponent the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers that circular has already been done for the universal enforcement of the aforementioned precedent of Sabina Damai, and in course of pleading, the joint attorney of the government side has explained that the government is always positive regarding conferring the certificate is present, petitions have been frequently furnished stating that citizenship could not be obtained by mother’s name; from this, this Court feels that condition is still existing in which the petitioners have been facing complication in vain. The condition to obtain citizenship by mother’s name is a difficult condition in itself; hence, it appears that if negative thought is retained towards this, additional inconvenience is put on the marginalized women. Hence, according to the spirit of the order made in the present case and the order made in the case of Sabina Damai, it is decided that directive order shall be issued on the name of the Government of Nepal to confer and to get the citizenship conferred by mother’s name easily in the condition that the citizenship is supposed to be obtained, without posing unnecessary complication, in the cases of such circumstances, arrange provision to monitor as well for not letting any complaint remain regarding this by setting up complaint hearing mechanism under the Ministry of Home Affairs. By providing information of this decision to the opponents through the Office of the Attorney General, strike off the record of the writ file and do with the document file as per rule. Precedent propounded by this Court is to be looked into regarding the citizenship that can be obtained by mother’s name. Regarding this, extensive and detailed interpretation has been made in the case of including Sabina Damai versus the opponent Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers (N.L.M 2068 Number 2, D. No. 8557). In the aforementioned case, precedent has been propounded that no citizen can be deprived of obtaining citizenship certificate by any official prescribed by not understanding the constitution, law and covenant relating to human rights or by giving wrong logic and meaning of the law, and that hardship has to be faced in order to obtain citizenship certificate cannot be acceptable; even if anyone of the parents is a citizen of Nepal, such person can obtain the citizenship of Nepal. According to the aforementioned constitutional and legal provisions and precedent doctrine, the person, who was born from a Nepalese citizen father or mother in any geographical part of Nepal, has the right to obtain citizenship certificate from that same district. Without being a citizen, no one can exercise political and civic right, to acquire immovable property, exercise the right to take part or cast vote in any elections or exercise the rights that are to be exercised only by the Nepalese citizens. After having been qualified due to being born in Nepal and after furnishing application in the format prescribed in the law by fulfilling necessary rule, it is a right of every qualified person to obtain the citizenship certificate of Nepal by easy and simple manner. However, in the situation of the application furnished by fulfilling the minimum process as per law for the sake of obtaining citizenship, on the ground of the aforementioned precedent propounded by this Justice I am with the decision Chief Justice Bench Officer: Indira Sharma 2072/12/02/03 (Tuesday, 15th March, 2016) 101 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION