The main legal point established in the judgment is the fulfillment of statutory requirements for Indian citizenship by birth and the consideration of public interest in issuing passports to non-citizens.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in Letter Ref.No.SCN/314050523/23 dated 06.01.2023 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and directing the respondent to issue passport for petitioner by considering his representation dated 17.01.2023 within a prescribed time.)

“TAMIL”

are the words employed by Srilankan Poet Cheran in his foreword to Tho.Pathinathan''s novel “TAMIL”. The novelist narrates as to how the title was finalized :-

“TAMIL”

In the case of P.Ulaganathan and Others Vs. The Government of India and Others in W.P.(MD)No.5253 of 2009, I had also made a similar comparison. I referred to the mythological character “Thirisangu”. A refugee is neither here nor there. His fate hangs in the balance. He is at some point above ground level in the air in a supportless state (Kraiavin tarkalat tamil akarati). That''s the literal meaning of the title of the novel.

2. Let us come to the case facts. Sahayanathan is a Srilankan refugee. He came to India in the year 1990. He was put in Sennalakudi Refugee Camp, Nattarasankottai, Sivagangai Taluk. A refugee is also a human-being. He can fall in love. Sahayanathan came in contact with Patchaiammal. She is an Indian citizen. They got married. It was not an inter-religious marriage. Inter-faith love does not necessarily culminate in inter-religious civil marriage. “Patchiammal” got converted and became Mary Christina. Their marriage was solemnized by the parish priest, Alangara Annai Cathedral, Sivagangai on 23.05.2001. The petitioner was born on 18.01.2002. He studied in S RM Higher Secondary School, Nattarasankottai and passed out in March, 2017. He studied B.Com. in Raja Doraisingam Government Arts College, Sivagangai. All that he now wants is issuance of passport so that he can explore employment opportunities abroad. He submitted an application dated 28.10.2022 before the respondent. Since in the birth certificate, the petitioner was mentioned as Srilankan refugee, the impugned notice dated 06.01.2023 was issued calling upon the petitioner to furnish proper explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.01.2023. Apprehending that his application may not be favourably considered, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. The apprehension of the petitioner is well-founded. I have described the plight of Srilankan refugees in getting citizenship in Ulaganathan case. One Nalini was born to Srilankan refugees on 21.04.1986 at Mandapam Camp. As per the provisions of Indian Citizenship Act, she is an Indian by birth. She was entitled to passport as a matter of right. Yet she had to move this Court for relief. Vide order dated 12.08.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.3512 of 2022, I held as follows:-

“6. In the case on hand, there is no scope for any doubt. The petitioner has enclosed the birth certificate issued by the competent authority. Its genuineness is not doubted. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi made in W.P(C)12179 of 2009 (Namgyal Dolkar Vs Government of India) dated 22.12.2010. In the said case, the petitioner was born in India on 13.04.1986. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that she is an Indian Citizen by birth in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of Citizenship Act, 1955 and that she cannot be denied passport. The case on hand is absolutely similar. Since the petitioner is an Indian citizen by birth, she need not apply for citizenship. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner had renounced her Indian citizenship.”

4. Harina was not lucky to be born before the cut-off date. Yet invoking Section 20 of the Passport Act, 1967, I directed the passport authorities to issue passport in her favour. Vide order dated 30.01.2023 in W.P.(MD)No. 27893 of 2022, I had held as follows:-

“6. The said provision reads as follows: