IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

WRIT PETITION NO.31272 OF 2019

Pranav Srinivasan

...Petitioner

Vs.

Government of India

Rep by its Secretary,

Ministry of Home Affairs,

MBC National Stadium,

India Gate

New Delhi-02.

...Respondent

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India

praying to Writ of

Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent made in

impugned order No.26030/51/2017-IC.I Govt. of India, Ministry of

Home Affairs, dated 30.04.2019, and quash the same and further

direct the respondent to declare that the petitioner had resumed

his citizenship of India on his declaration before the Consular

at New York in the duly prescribed form.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel

For Mr.R.Loganathan

For Respondents

:

Mr.Venkatasamy Babu

Senior Panel Counsel

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.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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