Point of Law: Section 4 of Act runs as citizenship by descent.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st and 3rd respondents/Union of India and the Bureau of Immigration to issue exit permit to the petitioner and has further sought a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from initiating any action against the petitioner.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief, are as follows:-

The petitioner is born to one Sri N.Ramachandran and Smt. Nagamani Ramachandran both of whom were citizens of India and residents of United States of America (‘USA’). The petitioner was born on 05-02-1997 in Nashville, Tennessee, USA. On the birth of the petitioner, the parents of the petitioner registered her birth before the Indian Embassy in USA. Later, the petitioner was also issued a passport of USA. On the strength of the said passport which was valid till 12-09-2004, the petitioner enters India on a tourist Visa on 23-06-2003, at which point in time, the petitioner was aged 6 years and a minor. She was admitted to the Primary School and in due course she completes her education up to 12th standard or the Pre-University. On 05.02.2015 the petitioner attains the age of 18 years and on 30.03.2015 finding herself eligible to take the Common Entrance Test, 2015 (‘CET’) which was being conducted by the 4th respondent/Karnataka Examinations Authority, applies, participates by declaring her nationality to be an Indian and secures 571st rank and was allotted medical seat in the Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences under the quota reserved for candidates sponsored by Government. The petitioner completes her education i.e., MBBS.

3. The petitioner did not renounce her citizenship or the nationality of USA after becoming a major. She applies for a fresh passport with the US Consulate General which accepts the application of the petitioner and grants a passport of USA to be valid till 16-03-2022. After acquisition of the said passport on 17-03-2021, the petitioner files an application before the Bureau of Immigration for grant of exit permit. Refusal of grant of exit permit to the petitioner to pursue further studies in USA is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Heard Sri B.S. Kiran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri H.Shanti Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents 1 and 3; Sri B.V.Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 2 and 5 and Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that when the petitioner came to India in the year 2003 she was a minor and the mother was a single parent. She was unaware of consequences of either the Citizenship Act of the country or nuances of the passport. He would admit that she did participate in the CET 2015 as an Indian, secures a seat and completes her MBBS. The learned counsel would submit that in terms of Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1A) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short) the petitioner is deemed to be declared to be Indian as the birth of the petitioner was registered in the Indian Consulate at USA. He would also submit that since 2003 she has been residing in India and, therefore, on the basis of domicile she is entitled to a citizenship and a consequent exit permit to move out of the country and pursue her career in USA. The refusal to issue exit permit or any other no objection would take away the fundamental right of the petitioner to travel is what is projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the Deputy Solicitor General of India would vehemently refute the submissions of the petitioner by taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the petitioner comes into this Country not on the strength of any passport issued by this country but on a tourist Visa which expired in