1. Application for resumption of Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 — Eligibility of a person born abroad to parents who acquired foreign citizenship. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 947
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S Oka, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Union of India – Appellant
versus
Pranav Srinivasan – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5932 of 2023 with Writ Petition (C) No. 123 of 2024
Decided On : 18-10-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv. Mr. Kritagya Kait, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Madhav Singhal, Adv. Mrs. Sansrithi Pathak, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Ms. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Adv. Ms. Nikita Capoor, Adv. Mr. Akshay N., Adv. Ms. Sanya Sud, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshay N., Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Bhoopesh Pandey, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Karol, Adv. Mr. Kritagya Kait, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Madhav Singhal, Adv. Mrs. Sansrithi Pathak, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Ms. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Adv. Ms. Nikita Capoor, Adv. Mr. Akshay N., Adv. Ms. Sanya Sud, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshay N., Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Bhoopesh Pandey, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Indian citizenship – Power under Article 142 of Constitution cannot be invoked for grant of citizenship of India to a foreign national.
(2) Citizenship of India cannot be conferred on foreign citizens by doing violence to plain language of 1955 Act – There is no scope to bring equitable considerations while interpreting such a statute.
Headnote:
Citizenship Act, 1955 – Sections 8 and 9 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Indian citizenship – Resumption of – Immediately after voluntary acquisition of Singapore citizenship, respondent’s parents ceased to be citizens of India by operation of Section 9(1) – After that, there was no occasion for respondent’s parents to renounce their citizenship on by mode provided under Section 8(1) as they had already ceased to be citizens of India – As respondent’s parents ceased to be citizens of India, not voluntarily but by operation of Section 9(1), Section 8(2) does not apply to respondent – Citizenship of India cannot be conferred on foreign citizens by doing violence to plain language of 1955 Act – There is no scope to bring equitable considerations while interpreting such a statute – Power under Article 142 is an extraordinary power which should be exercised to deal with exceptional circumstances – This case do not warrant exercise of power under Article 142 of Constitution – Supreme Court will have to be very circumspect when it comes to exercise of power under Article 142 for grant of citizenship of India to a foreign national – Impugned orders set aside. (Paras 19, 20, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Issue involved in these cases concerns grant of Indian citizenship to respondent in civil appeal and petitioner in writ petition.
Findings of Court:
View taken by High Court was completely erroneous as High Court held that respondent had resumed Indian citizenship under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of Citizenship Act, 1955.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether citizenship can be claimed under Article 8 of the Constitution, Section 5(1)(b), or Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, following parents' acquisition of foreign citizenship. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Analysis of Article 8 regarding constitutional commencement; definition of person of Indian origin under Section 5; distinction between renunciation under Section 8 and termination under Section 9. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, applies only to minor children of persons who renounced citizenship under Section 8(1), not those whose citizenship terminated under Section 9(1). (Para 19 , 20 )
5. Appeal allowed and writ petition dismissed — Impugned orders set aside — Liberty granted to apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
6. Does Article 8 of the Constitution allow persons born after its commencement to claim Indian citizenship based on ancestry?
No. Article 8 applies only to persons who were ordinarily residing outside India at the commencement of the Constitution. It does not apply to foreign nationals born after the Constitution's commencement, as that would lead to absurd results. (Para 15 , 16 )
7. Who qualifies as a person of Indian origin under Explanation 2 to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955?
A person is deemed to be of Indian origin if they, or either of their parents, were born in undivided India or in such other territory which became part of India after August 15, 1947. (Para 18 )
8. Can a minor child resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) if the parents' citizenship terminated automatically under Section 9(1)?
No. Section 8(2) applies only when a parent ceases to be a citizen by making a declaration of renunciation under Section 8(1). It does not apply to the involuntary cessation of citizenship by operation of law under Section 9(1). (Para 19 , 20 )
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. The issue involved in these cases concerns the grant of Indian citizenship to Pranav Srinivasan, the respondent in the civil appeal and petitioner in the writ petition.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. A few factual aspects must be set out to appreciate the factual and legal controversy. The paternal grandparents of Pranav were born in India before independence. Pranav’s father and mother were born in India in 1963 and 1972, respectively. On 19th December 1998, Pranav’s parents adopted citizenship of Singapore. On 1st March 1999, Pranav was born in Singapore as a citizen of Singapore. According to the case of Pranav, on 20th April 2012, his parents renounced their Indian citizenship. On 5th May 2017, when Pranav was eighteen years, two months and four days old, he submitted an application in Form XXV specified under Rule 24 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009, read with sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the CITIZENSHIP ACT , 1955 (for short, ‘the 1955 Act’) for resumption of his Indian citizenship.
3. Earlier, Pranav filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras as his application in Form XXV was not considered. Ultimately, it was revealed that Pranav had not paid the necessary fees. Therefore, the High Court permitted Pranav to pay the required fees by the order dated 30th November 2017. The said order was modified by a further order dated 29th November 2018 in the writ petition filed by Pranav, and the High Court directed the concerned authorities to decide the application made by Pranav. By the order dated 30th April 2019, the Ministry of Home Affairs held that Pranav was not eligible for resumption of citizenship under Section 8 (2) of the 1955 Act. Pranav was advised to reapply either under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act. Pranav challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Pranav succeeded before the learned Single Judge as it was held that he was entitled to resume his citizenship in accordance with Section 8 (2) of the 1955 Act. Being aggrieved, the Union of India preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal was dismissed. Therefore, Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2023 was preferred by the Union of India before this Court.
4. In the civil appeal, an order was passed by this Court on 7th December 2023, directing that the form filled up by Pranav on 5th May 2017 shall be treated as an application filed in Form L of the Citizens (Registration at Indian Consulates) Rules, 1956. A direction was issued to decide the application accordingly. An order was passed on 30th January 2024 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, holding that Pranav was not a person of Indian origin in terms of Section 5 of the 1955 Act. Therefore, he was not eligible for a grant of Indian citizenship under clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act. Being aggrieved, Pranav has filed Writ Petition (C) No.123 of 2024 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
SUBMISSIONS
5. Mr C S Vaidyanathan, the learned senior counsel appearing for Pranav, submitted that within three months of attaining majority, on 5th May 2017, Pranav 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 was administered the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India on the date of filing the application. The submission of the learned senior counsel, in short, is that apart from the fact that Pranav was entitled to resume his Indian citizenship by invoking Section 8 (2) of the 1955 Act, he is deemed to be an Indian citizen under Article 8 of the Constitution of India by virtue of his grandparents’ birth in undivided India. Moreover, he was entitled to seek Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Act.
6. The learned senior counsel invited our attention to Articles 5 and 6 of the Constitution, which
