O R D E R

The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the respondent/Government of India (GOI) dated 30.04.2019. The aforesaid order, while rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking Indian Citizenship in terms of Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (in short ‘CA’) permits him to apply for Citizenship under Section 5(1)(f)/(g) of the CA, if he so desires.

2. A preliminary question thus arose as to why the petitioner pursues this writ petition, seeing as the impugned order does not reject his claim for citizenship in toto, but leaves an avenue open, whereunder he could still obtain the relief claimed.

3. A perusal of Section 5(1)(f)/(g) of the CA indicates the existence of certain conditions based upon which, such status will be granted. Citizenship sought under the aforesaid provisions would necessitate residence of the petitioner in India for various stipulated periods and it is for this reason that the petitioner expresses no interest in this and would instead pursue his claim under Section 8(2) only, as he believes that he was an Indian Citizen to begin with and thus must be permitted to ‘resume his citizenship’.

4. I agree with the petitioner that his entitlement under Section 8 must first be tested and only if rejected, would there be any necessity for him to proceed under the conditional status provided under Section 5. Hence I proceed to hear and decide the petitioner’s claim for resumption of citizenship under Section 8(2).

5. This is thus not a case where the petitioner seeks citizenship afresh but one where he seeks resumption of citizenship. The facts, as relevant to decide the lis are as follows:

(a) The grandparents of the petitioner were, and continue to be citizens of India by birth.

(b) The parents of the petitioner, though originally Indian Citizens, renounced their citizenship and obtained citizenship of Singapore on 19.12.1998. The petitioner was a foetus, aged seven and a half months old at that time. The petitioner was born on 01.03.1999 in Singapore. He acquired citizenship of Singapore by virtue of his birth there.

(c) The petitioner attained the age of majority on 01.03.2017.

(d) On 05.05.2017, he made a declaration before the Indian Consulate at Singapore seeking resumption of his Indian Citizenship. The application was in Form XXV in terms of Rule 24(1) of the Citizenship Rules 2009, entitled ‘Declaration of Intention to Resume Indian Citizenship under Section 8(2) of the CA made by a person who ceased to be an Indian Citizen on the loss of Indian Citizenship by his parents in accordance with the provisions of Section 8(1) of the CA’.

(e)Inter alia, the petitioner proceeds on the premise that he had ceased to be an Indian Citizen by virtue of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the CA, on April 20, 2012, by reason of the fact that his parents became citizens of Singapore on 19.12.1998, on which date, he was en ventre sa mere, or, in the womb of his mother. His parents renounced their Indian Citizenship on

20.04.2012.

(f) Passing for a moment, learned Senior Counsel confirms at this juncture that the renunciation of citizenship by his parents was even earlier on 19.12.1998 and hence the formal renunciation of their citizenship on

20.04.2012 would not be material and need not be taken note of by the Court.

(g) Since the petitioner ceased to be an Indian citizen, he seeks renunciation of the same in terms of Section 8(2) as both his parents and grandparents were citizens of India by birth, his grandparents continue to be citizens as on date and he was an Indian citizen at the time when his parents renounced their Indian citizenship.

6. Part II of the Constitution of India provides for citizenship and Article 5 for citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution. Article 6 deals with the rights of citizenship of a person who had migrated to India from Pakistan and Article 7 provides for the reverse, that is, the rights of those migrants from India to Pakistan.

7. We are concerned with Article 8 tha