Going To Pakistan For Job Doesn't Qualify Anyone As 'Enemy' Under Defence Law: Kerala HC

The case centered around P. Ummer Kova, who had purchased property in the Malappuram district from his father, Kun Koye, and some nearby land from his relatives.

In its judgment, the Kerala High Court emphasised that merely seeking employment in Pakistan does not render someone an enemy under the specified rules.

Source : File Photo

In a landmark judgment, Kerala High Court has ruled that an individual who traveled to Pakistan in search of employment does not automatically qualify as an enemy under the Defence of India Rules 1971, specifically Rules 150 and 138, unless they were engaged in trade with an enemy. This ruling came as the court quashed proceedings initiated against a petitioner under the Enemy Property Act, concerning a property once owned by the petitioner's father, who had worked in Karachi for a brief period.

The case centered around P. Ummer Kova, who had purchased property in the Malappuram district from his father, Kun Koye, and some nearby land from his relatives. However, when Kova attempted to pay the property tax, the village officer refused, citing orders from the Custodian of Enemy Property of India (CEPI) and proceedings under the Enemy Property Act 1968. The action was reportedly based on a notification from the Ministry of Foreign Trade.

The petitioner argued that his father had been recognized as an Indian citizen by the Central government under the Citizenship Act, but this did not sway the authorities. In its judgment, the Kerala High Court emphasized that merely seeking employment in Pakistan does not render someone an enemy under the specified rules.

"Only for the reason that the petitioner's father had gone to Pakistan in search of a job and worked there for a short period will not bring the petitioner's father within the definition of enemy under Rules 150 or 138 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971," the court stated, as reported by IANS. It further noted that these rules were intended for entirely different purposes, and applying them to this case was "totally out of context and irrelevant."

The court's decision to quash the proceedings initiated by the CEPI and its directive for the village officer to accept the property tax from the petitioner is a significant relief for P. Ummer Kova.