Rakshandha Darak, Alliance University, Bangalore
ABSTRACT
This paper consists of the case commentary on the case law, Kedar Pandey .V. Narain Bikram Sah. This paper has in particular concentrated on Article 5 and Article 173 of the Indian Constitution with special reference to domicile of origin and domicile of choice in this case. The researcher in this case, has focussed on the interpretation of article 5 and 173 in this case and has also came to the conclusion that domicile of origin and domicile of choice are two different concepts but are related to each other. The domicile of origin cannot be waived off until and unless one acquires domicile of choice. The scope of the paper is limited to the case commentary on Kedar Pandey .V. Narain Bikram Sah with regards to the principle of domicile law and special reference to Article 5 and Article 173 of the Indian Constitution.
Keywords: Domicile, Constitution, Interpretation, Origin, Choice.
Comentários