Nepal Citizenship Rule, 2063, description is seen to have been mentioned that in the place where name, surname and address of father or mother of the citizenship of the person, whose paternity/ maternity is not known, the patron’ name, surname, address shall have to be mentioned, indicating the description that paternity maternity has not been traced, and under 10 of the aforementioned Procedural Directives, 2063 in the Chapter of the names of parents, mentioning “paternity/maternity has not been traced”, patron’s name, surname, address shall have to be disclosed. debate, pleading has been presented that the provision has been made in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Nepalese Citizenship Rule, 2063 so as to affect in the enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution by hooking the provision made by Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063 itself. The legal provision of Sub-rule (6) of the aforementioned Rule 3 has not made the provision that person found within the borders of Nepal but having paternity maternity not known shall not obtain citizenship. It has made the provision up to that patron’s name, surname and address shall have to be mentioned in it by indicating the description that paternity maternity has not been traced. The petitioner is seen to have challenged that the aforementioned provision is also voidable. Upon considering pertaining to that, it is seen in the affidavit submitted on behalf of Home Ministry that the matter of the paternity/maternity not known are to be recorded in the record only and circular has been already made to all the District Administration Offices so as to leave the aforementioned Chapter in the citizenship; hence, it is not necessary to carry out constitutional examination of the aforementioned provision. Hence, the provisions of Sub-rule (6) and Rule 3 of the Rule and Point No. 10 of Citizenship Certificate Distribution Directives, 2063 are not seen to have been insistent being incongruent to Sub-articles (2), (3), 12, 13, 22 of Article 8 of the Constitution and Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063. The aforementioned provision is not seen to have deprived the legal right to be able to obtain the citizenship through the paternity maternity not known and patronage. Only in connection that name of father or mother shall have to be mentioned in the citizenship certificate, it has been just said that paternity maternity have not been traced. It is not sufficient to just say that the provision made in any Rule is inconsistent with mother Act and Constitution. If it is said to have been inconsistent, the duty to rule out with logic and evidence is upon the writ petition himself. In the situation of improper restriction upon the fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution, the provisions of the Rule arranged so as to restrict are supposed to be declared void by this Court by carrying out constitutional examination. The fact is known that the provisions of the Rule that are inconsistent with the mother Act are being made invalid by being declared void by this Court till today on the basis of that. Moreover, until it can be get justified clearly stating that the law or any of its provision challenged has been inconsistent with a certain provision of the Constitution, this Court does not declare such law or any provision of the law void. Upon considering towards the second issue, an application is seen to have been furnished by the petitioner, Amrit Kumar Sharma, in the District Administration Office, Kathmandu in order to obtain the citizenship certificate by attaching the photocopy of Prajpati Sharma (Timsina). In No.6 of the application form filled up by him for the sake of citizenship, the description that “identity of paternity has not been disclosed” is seen to have been mentioned in the Chapter where the father’s name, surname are to be mentioned. In Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of Nepal Citizenship Act, 2063, there is provision that the person having paternity maternity not known shall obtain citizenship certificate on the basis of descent. The matter that the paternity/ maternity of this petitioner, Amrit Kumar Sharma, not known comes to have been supported by the documents including birth registration certificate submitted. There is no debate on the fact that the bases and processes of conferring citizenship certificate are determined by the Constitution of Nepal, 2063 and prevailing Nepal law. The procedural directives claimed void is not seen to have hooked in the person’s substantive rights to obtain citizenship. This is seen to have been made provision just on what kinds of procedures and processes are to be fulfilled in order to obtain the citizenships. Nepal has maintain clear and consistent policy on citizenship in the constitution itself, and sovereignty, national independence and integrity of Nepal; and to maintain unfathomable patriotism of the Nepalese people uninterrupted, it is necessary to adopt the aforementioned policy pertaining to citizenship. Pertaining to the petitioner’s citizenship, District Administration Office, Kathmandu is seen to have refused to confer the citizenship on date 2070/4/9 on the basis that the patron Prajapati Sharma (Timsina) has not been the patron of Amrit Kumar Sharma as per law, and parents’ names, surnames and addresses have not been mentioned Rule is a policy document to be formed to fulfill the objective of the Act. The rights not provisioned in the Acts are not kept by adding in the Rule. If provisioned to affect in the substantive rights negatively by adding, that is voidable. In this 89 Compilation of Selected Decisions of Supreme Court on CITIZENSHIP and BIRTH REGISTRATION