Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
Wong Mui Cheen – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
W.P. No. 22157 of 2023
Decided On : 20-06-2024
Passport - Writ Petition - Passport Act, 1967; Citizenship Act, 1955 - The court interpreted Sections 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act and Section 6 of the Passport Act, emphasizing the entitlement to citizenship by birth and the grounds for passport refusal, ultimately mandating the issuance of a passport.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a senior citizen born in India, applied for a passport multiple times, facing delays due to concerns about her nationality stemming from her parents' backgrounds. Despite providing valid birth certificates, her applications remained unprocessed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner is a citizen of India by birth under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, and the reasons for the refusal of her passport application were unfounded, as they did not meet the grounds specified in the Passport Act.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a passport based on her citizenship status and the validity of the reasons for the refusal of her application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, being born in India and fulfilling the criteria for citizenship, is entitled to a passport, and the authorities must process her application without undue delay.
Result: The court issued a mandamus directing the respondents to process the petitioner's passport application and issue the passport within four weeks.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to issue a passport to the petitioner based on the Petitioner’s Application Reference No. 19-1009386519 and Application No. MA2062490843919 dated 04.10.2019 pending with the 2nd respondent.
1. The Petitioner, a senior citizen, seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to issue a passport based on her application filed on 04.10.2019.
2. The brief submissions of Mr.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Raman and Associates for the petitioner are that the petitioner was born on 27.11.1957 in Kolkata to one Late Wong Tsam Cha, who was born in China and had come to India to pursue his living. Her mother was born in Sikkim and belongs to the Lepcha Community.
3. Her parents were married in Kolkata and the petitioner was born there and holds a birth certificate issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation dated 08.11.1976 bearing Serial No. 2299 setting out her date of birth as 27.11.1957 and date of registration as 02.11.1976. The column ‘Nationality or caste’ contains the narration ‘Chinese Buddhist.’
4. The petitioner shifted to Chennai in 1976 after her marriage with Li Wenfa. The couple have four children born in Chennai. The petitioner has been issued an Aadhar Card, Pan Card and Ration Card by the Indian authorities. Her four children were originally issued Indian Passports and while three continue their Indian citizenship, her eldest son is stated to be an OCI Card holder. He is currently residing in Auckland, New Zealand, holding a New Zealand passport. The youngest, her daughter, is stated to be currently residing in United Kingdom. Two of her sons, Indian passport holders, are residing in Chennai.
5. The petitioner’s husband passed away in Chennai on 22.04.2021 and prior thereto, her father had passed away in Chennai on 16.02.1991. The petitioner claims to have applied for a passport in 2007 which application was not processed. She once again applied in November, 2012 and this application is also kept pending inordinately.
6. The receipt of the application is not in dispute. The petitioner was given to understand in response to an application under Right to Information Act (RTI) that reminders have been sent to the Under Secretary Citizenship, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), New Delhi seeking a clarification in regard to her citizenship.
7. Subsequently, despite strenuous efforts, that application did not see any result for a long time. Out of the blue, she received a letter dated 11.01.2019 informing her that her application has been closed. She tried for a third time vide an application filed on 04.10.2019 which application also not seen the light of day thus far.
8. The petitioner relies on Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 (in short ‘PA Act’), where specific grounds have been set out for refusal of passport. She does not satisfy any of those grounds. She claims full citizenship to India under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (in short ‘CA Act’) and states that she is thus entitled to a passport.
9. The petitioner has, in the course of the three occasions when she has sought a passport, been informed that the narration ‘Chinese Buddhist’ in the column ‘Nationality and caste’ was standing in the way of her request. However, she would urge that this could have no relevance in her case in light of Section 3(1)(a) of the CA Act which states that any person born in India between 26.01.1950 and 01.07.1987 shall be a citizen irrespective of the Nationality of her parents.
10. She relies on the decision of this Court in Neyatitus vs. Regional Passport Officer, 2023 SCC Online Mad 2068 to that effect that the description of that applicant as a Sri Lankan refugee would not come in the way of issuance of passport. She has been suffering ill health and wishes to visit her son in New Zealand which she cannot do without a passport.
11. Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in t
Citizenship by birth under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act entitles individuals to a passport, irrespective of parental nationality.
Individuals born in India between January 26, 1950, and July 1, 1987, are Indian citizens by birth and entitled to a passport, regardless of their parents' nationality or refugee status.
None of the parties could bring to the notice of this Court any legal prohibition in incorporating the name of a non-citizen as the legal guardian in the passport of a minor child.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, and adverse police verification does not automatically disqualify passport issuance.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and cannot be denied arbitrarily, especially in light of ongoing matrimonial disputes.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and cannot be denied without justifiable grounds, especially in cases of parental disputes.
A minor's citizenship by birth is not affected by a parent's foreign nationality, ensuring the child's right to an Indian passport.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
