|
On
23rd August, 2006 I submitted Application Under Section 6 of Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer, President’s Secretariat,
contending therein that “On 17th May 2004, at about 10.00 AM (morning) I forwarded
Fax Message to His Excellency President of India Shri A. P. J. Kalam, referring therein interalia that “under
the Constitution of Italy citizenship of Italy of Smt. Sonia Gandhi is still exists and her allegiance to the Constitution
of Italy cannot be discontinued and shall prevails”. And further contended that the aforesaid fact can
be verified from the Citizenship Law of Italy and Constitution of Italy in Italian Language from
the Website of the Government of Italy: http://www.giustizia.it/cassazione/leggi/191_92.html and http://www.quirinale.it/costituzione/costituzione.htm respectively and their English translated copies are available at renowned Websites: http://www.legislationline.org/legislation.php?tid=11&lid=1436. at: http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/it00000_html respectively, and also contended that from the English translated copy of the aforesaid documents, under Sub-clause (a) of the Clause 1 of Article 1 read with Sub-clause (c) of the Clause
1 of Article 13 of the Citizenship Law of Italy and Part I under Title I under Article 14(1) and 16(2) under Part I, Title
IV, Article 48(3) and 54(1) of the constitution of Italy, one never can renounce his/her “Right to Citizenship of Italy”, which undoubtedly prevails
permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and
forever, even if one might have renounced his/her Citizenship of Italy. It is always recoverable at any time even in remote
future, on the expiry of one year from the date of their declaration to the effect in the prescribed manner. Thus, the so-called
renouncement is only temporary in character and nature and never be final. Thus Italian citizen by birth always having allegiance
to the Constitution of Italy, even if he/she
gets citizenship of India, under dual citizenship or otherwise. In view of the aforesaid Italian
provisions Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi are Italian Citizen by birth, and their allegiance
to the Constitution of Italy is not only acknowledged but prevails permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally
and forever, even they might have renounced their respective CITIZENSHIP of Italy, and wanted
to “know that what action was taken by His Excellency Shri A. P. J. Kalam, on my aforesaid representation through Fax
Message to see that compliance of the Article 102 of the Constitution of India should
be ensured, so one having “Italian Citizen by Birth”,
even if he or she might be claiming to be renounced his/her Italian Citizenship, should be disqualified for being chosen as,
and for being a member of either House of Parliament under Article 102 of the Constitution of India.”
On
23rd August, 2006 I submitted Application Under Section 6 of Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer, President’s Secretariat,
contending therein that Citizenship Law of Italy and Constitution of Italy in Italian Language are available
at the Website of the Government of Italy: http://www.giustizia.it/cassazione/leggi/191_92.html and http://www.quirinale.it/costituzione/costituzione.htm respectively and their English translated copies are available at renowned Websites: http://www.legislationline.org/legislation.php?tid=11&lid=1436. at: http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/it00000_html respectively and further contending that from the English translated copy of the aforesaid documents, under Sub-clause (a) of the Clause 1 of Article 1 read with Sub-clause (c) of the Clause
1 of Article 13 of the Citizenship Law of Italy and Part I under Title I under Article 14(1) and 16(2) under Part I, Title
IV, Article 48(3) and 54(1) of the constitution of Italy, one never can renounce his/her “Right to Citizenship of Italy”, which undoubtedly prevails
permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and
forever, even if one might have renounced his/her Citizenship of Italy. It is always recoverable at any time even in remote
future, on the expiry of one year from the date of their declaration to the effect in the prescribed manner. Thus, the so-called
renouncement is only temporary in character and nature and never be final. Thus Italian citizen by birth always having allegiance
to the Constitution of Italy, even if he/she
gets citizenship of India, under dual citizenship or otherwise. In view of the aforesaid Italian provisions Smt. Sonia
Gandhi and Shri Rahul Gandhi are Italian Citizen by birth, and their allegiance to the Constitution
of Italy is not only acknowledged but prevails permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and forever, even
they might have renounced their respective CITIZENSHIP of Italy. While under the scheme of the Indian Citizenship read with Article 102 of the Constitution of India under which any person having right to citizenship of any other country means he or she have allegiance
to such other country, even if he/she gets citizenship of India, under dual citizenship or otherwise, should not have been
allowed to hold any Constitutional Office in India, and submit that in view of the aforesaid provisions Smt. Sonia Gandhi and
Shri Rahul Gandhi are Italian Citizen by birth, and their allegiance to the Constitution of Italy
is not only acknowledged but prevails permanently, irrevocably, unequivocally and forever, even they might
have renounced their respective CITIZENSHIP of Italy, and wanted to know that in view of the
aforesaid provision whether His Excellency President of India got examined or contemplating to get examined the legal implication
of the fact that though Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi might have renounced her/his Italian
Citizenship, why ought not to be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of either House of Parliament as
debarred by Article 102 of the Constitution of India.
With
reference to one of aforesaid application dated 23rd August 2006, I received response through Memo Letter No. E-6/DPS/20/08/2006
dated Sept. 1, 2006 that “all communications addressed to the President following the 14th General
Elections containing various suggestions on the formation of the Government including your letter of 17th May,
2004 were accorded due consideration by the President.”
In
the context of the aforesaid Reply, on 7th October, 2006 I submitted a fresh application and wanted certified copies
of all communications in connections with and following the 14th General Elections containing various suggestions
including letter forwarded by Smt. Sonia Gandhi, the then newly elected leader of the Congress Party in the Parliament to
His Excellency President of India Dr. A. P. J. Kalam claiming formation of the Government headed by herself or by some one
else, and reply made by His Excellency to Smt. Sonia Gandhi on or after 16th May 2004, till formation of Government
headed by the Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh.
But,
CPIO and Appellate Authority refused to supply any further Information, claiming that the same are covered under Fiduciary
Relationship. I filed a Appeal before Central Information Commission, and during the hearing of the said Case, Appellate Authority
and CPIO from the President’s Secretariat claimed that on my application they got opinion from Attorney General Ld.
Mr. Milon Banerjee, who supported that the said Correspondence was covered within the meaning of the Fiduciary Relationship.
Therefore, on 10th December, 2007, I submitted a Fresh Application before Central Public Information Officer,
President’s Secretariat, Under Section 6 of Right to Information Act, 2005 claiming that during the hearing
of APPEAL NO. CIC/WB/A/2006/01003 of 2006, against CPIO and AA of the President’s Secretariat, held on 9th
October, 2007, the personnel representing the CPIO and Appellate Authority of the President’s Secretariat, referred
before the Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner that the Written Opinion were obtain by the President’s Secretariat
from Ld. Mr. Milon Bonerjee, Attorney General of India, who raised serious objection against supply of the respective Information
sought by me through applications being subject matter of the above numbered Appeal, thus I wanted Certified Copy of the aforesaid Written Opinion submitted
by the Attorney General of India. In response to aforesaid application
President Secretariat claimed that the said Opinion was categorized by the Ministry of Law and Justice as “Confidential”.
Therefore, on 17th January, 2008, I submitted another application before the Central Public Information
Officer, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, Under
Section 6 of Right to Information Act, 2005, that with reference
to my application dated 23rd August 2006, and response
received thereof, from the President’s Secretariat, vide Memo Letter No. E-6/DPS/20/08/2006 dated Sept. 1, 2006 replied
that “all communications addressed to the President following the 14th General Elections containing various
suggestions on the formation of the Government including your letter of 17th May, 2004 were accorded due consideration
by the President.”, and accordingly through subsequent application I wanted certified copies of all communications in
connections with and following the 14th General Elections containing various suggestions including letter forwarded
by Smt. Sonia Gandhi, the then newly elected leader of the Congress Party in the Parliament to His Excellency President of
India Dr. A. P. J. Kalam claiming formation of the Government headed by herself or by some one else, and reply made by His
Excellency to Smt. Sonia Gandhi on or after 16th May 2004, till formation of Government headed by the Prime Minister
Dr. Man Mohan Singh. In response to the said subsequent application
Legal Opinion was obtained by the President’s Secretariat, from Learned Mr. Milon Banerji, Attorney General of India,
through your Department. Vide application dated 10th
December, 2007 I wanted Certified Copy of the aforesaid Legal Opinion from the President’s Secretariat, which they refused
to supply claiming that the same was treated as ‘confidential’ by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, and wanted to inspection of the file Noting
of the respective file, by which aforesaid Legal Opinion obtained by the President’s Secretariat, from Learned Mr. Milon
Banerji, Attorney General of India, and treated by your Department as ‘confidential’, and refused to allow.
In view of the aforesaid experiences, an important question of national interest arises whether appointment of the
Attorney General of India and Additional Solicitor General of India are appointed to protect personal interest or the integrity
of proprietary of the Constitution of India?
|
