ORDER

1. The father of these two petitioners Shri Vinod Chandra Chadha wrote a letter dated 7-3-1989 to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi claiming that both his daughters were entitled to be declared to be citizens of India by virtue of Article 5 of the Constitution and Section 4(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. In addition to this claim of Indian citizenship he further stated they were citizens of Britain by virtue of their birth in England and of Finland by virtue of their mothers nationality. The particulars in regard to their dates of birth, passports, foreign travels, etc., were also furnished in the said letter and it was said that "citizenship status flowing as a birthright can neither be treated as having been, nor deemed to have been, voluntarily acquired". Since both the petitioners held British and Finnish passports it was contended that foreign citizenship, where it subsists as a birthright, subsists from the day of birth and cannot operate as a disqualification under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act in respect of their claim to Indian citizenship. The Government of India replied by saying that there was no provision in the Citizenship Act for grant of dual citizenship and invited attention to Section 9(1) of the Citizenship Act. It is this reply dated 7-4-1989 which has prompted the petitioners to move this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

2. In the course of the preliminary hearing of these petitions we inquired of counsel for the petitioners who had since attained majority to state whether the petitioners would be willing to renounce their British and Finnish nationalities if this Court holds that the petitioners are not entitled to multiple nationalities and must choose to retain either the Indian nationally or the other two nationalities conferred on them. In answer to this query the petitioners filed their reply affidavit dated 2-8-1995, in para 4 whereof it was stated :

"It is respectfully submitted that to make such an election would defeat the object of the writ petition. Additionally this question does not arise out of the instant writ petition on account of the fact that if it is held that I do have multiple nationally, including Indian nationality, then there is no provision for any election/choice to be made by choosing any nationality in preference to any other nationality when all the nationalities are conferred upon me by operation of the laws in India, England and Finland respectively. In these circumstances and on account of the reasons which are more fully set out in para 7, I respectfully submit that there is no choice to be exercised and I must, therefore, decline to renounce any of my nationalities including my Indian nationality. Having been conferred Indian, English and Finnish nationalities respectively I am not obliged or required by any law of any of these countries to renounce one or more nationalities or elect between them."

In para 7 they further averred that it would be impossible to make a choice between two cultures and they did not feel compelled to make the choice. That is because in their opinion Indian nationally was fundamental just as the other two nationalities. Thus the petitioners have refused to indicate their choice.

3. It is thus an admitted fact that the petitioners hold valid British and Finnish passports and while desirous of retaining the citizenship of the said two countries they are claiming that they are citizens of India as well and the Government of India should recognise the same. To appreciate their claim we may refer to the relevant articles in Part II of the Constitution entitled Citizenship. Article 5 reads as follows :

"5. Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution. - At the commencement of this Constitution every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and -

(a) who was born in the territory of India; or

(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or

(c) who has be