There is no scope for a liberal interpretation of the Citizenship Act of 1955 when it comes to granting Indian citizenship to foreign nationals, the Supreme Court recently observed. The top court set aside a Madras High Court ruling that said an unborn child of formerly Indian parents can claim Indian citizenship even if the parents have renounced theirs.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India clarified that there is no room for a broad interpretation of the Citizenship Act of 1955 when determining citizenship eligibility for foreign nationals. A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih stated that the Court cannot engage in any form of “violence” toward the statute to incorporate equitable considerations for those seeking Indian citizenship.
“The language used in the provisions of the 1955 Act is plain and simple. Hence, the same should be given ordinary and natural meaning. Moreover, we are dealing with a law which provides for the grant of citizenship of India to foreign nationals. There is no scope to bring equitable considerations while interpreting such a statute,”
-the Bench observed.
It emphasized that the provisions, specifically Sections 5, 8, and 9 of the Citizenship Act, are unambiguous.
“There is no scope for its liberal interpretation. Citizenship of India cannot be conferred on foreign citizens by doing violence to the plain language of the 1955 Act,”
-the Court held.
This observation came while overturning a May 2022 ruling by the Madras High Court. The High Court had previously ruled that an individual could claim Indian citizenship even if their parents renounced Indian citizenship before the individual’s birth.
Justice Anita Sumanth of the Madras High Court had allowed the plea of one Pranav Srinivasan, who sought Indian citizenship on the grounds that, although his parents renounced their Indian citizenship before he was born, he retained a right to claim it.
Srinivasan’s case originated when he petitioned the High Court to set aside a 2019 order from the Union Home Ministry, which denied his request for citizenship. His parents had renounced Indian citizenship in December 1998 and acquired Singaporean citizenship, while Srinivasan’s mother was pregnant with him. As a result, Srinivasan was granted Singaporean citizenship by birth.
Upon reaching adulthood, Srinivasan sought to “resume” Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) ruled that he was not eligible for resumption of citizenship under this provision, advising him instead to reapply under clauses (f) or (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act.
Challenging the MHA’s decision, Srinivasan filed a writ petition with the Madras High Court, which ruled in his favor. The Court granted him the right to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2). The Central Government, however, filed an appeal against this decision with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling on December 7, 2023, instructed that Srinivasan’s form be processed as an application filed under Form L of the Citizens (Registration at Indian Consulates) Rules, 1956. Consequently, on January 30, 2024, the MHA issued an order concluding that Srinivasan did not qualify as a person of Indian origin under Section 5 of the Act. Thus, he was ineligible for Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(b), as per the Centre’s determination.
In response, Srinivasan brought the matter before the Supreme Court once again. Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, representing Srinivasan, argued that within three months of reaching adulthood, Srinivasan had-
“declared his intention to resume Indian citizenship by filing the application in Form XXV with the Consulate Office (Consulate General of India, New York, USA).”
He had also “taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India on the date of the application.”
Furthering his argument, Vaidyanathan contended that Srinivasan was entitled to reclaim his citizenship under Section 8(2) and that he should be deemed an Indian citizen under Article 8 of the Constitution due to his grandparents’ birth in undivided India. Additionally, he asserted that Srinivasan met the requirements for citizenship under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act.
Citing Articles 5 and 6, Vaidyanathan emphasized that these articles use the term “at the commencement of this Constitution,” while Article 8 employs the phrase “whether before or after the commencement of the Constitution of India.” Therefore, he argued that Article 8 applies post-independence, unlike Articles 5 and 6.
Vaidyanathan further argued that the wording of Section 5 makes it clear that Indian citizenship can be acquired through either constitutional provisions or the Citizenship Act, with Article 8 serving as “an independent and distinct source of citizenship.” He highlighted that Srinivasan’s grandparents were born in the State of Tamil Nadu, which was part of undivided India prior to August 15, 1947, asserting, “under Article 8, Pranav qualified to become an Indian citizen.”
Moreover, Vaidyanathan claimed that apart from constitutional rights, Srinivasan qualified for registration as an Indian citizen under Section 5(1)(b), as he was a person of Indian origin with parents born in independent India. He emphasized that a “common sense of interpretation” should apply to the phrase “in such other territory which became part of India after August 15, 1947,” under Explanation 2 to Section 5, to include territories that were part of undivided India.
Vaidyanathan further argued that the term “minor child” in Section 8(2) should encompass “an unborn child or a child in the womb.” He explained that Section 3 addresses citizenship by birth, while Section 8(2) refers to minor children, suggesting that a child need not be born in India to seek resumption of citizenship under this section.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s reliance on Article 8, which pertains to the rights of citizenship for certain persons of Indian origin residing abroad.
“If the interpretation sought to be given on behalf of Pranav to article 8 is accepted, someone born, say in the year 2000, who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India as defined in the 1935 Act, as originally enacted, would be entitled to claim citizenship of India on the ground that any of his parents or grandparents were born in that part of Pakistan or Bangladesh which was part of India as defined in the 1935 Act, as originally enacted,”
-the top court explained.
The Court rejected any reliance on the Citizenship Act and ruled that the High Court’s reasoning was incorrect. However, it clarified that Srinivasan could still seek citizenship under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of the 1955 Act with a request for appropriate relaxations.
In the case proceedings, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan represented Srinivasan, while Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appeared on behalf of the Union government.
CASE TITLE:
Union of India v Pranav Srinivasan.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Citizenship Act
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
