J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. The issue involved in these cases concerns the grant of Indian citizenship to Pranav Srinivasan, the respondent in the civil appeal and petitioner in the writ petition.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

2. A few factual aspects must be set out to appreciate the factual and legal controversy. The paternal grandparents of Pranav were born in India before independence. Pranav’s father and mother were born in Signature Not Verified India in 1963 and 1972, respectively. On 19th December Digitally signed by ASHISH KONDLE D 16a :t 4e 7: :2 30 52 I4 S. T10.18 1998, Pranav’s parents adopted citizenship of Singapore.

Reason:

On 1st March 1999, Pranav was born in Singapore as a citizen of Singapore. According to the case of Pranav, on 20th April 2012, his parents renounced their Indian citizenship. On 5th May 2017, when Pranav was eighteen years, two months and four days old, he submitted an application in Form XXV specified under Rule 24 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009, read with sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the 1955 Act’) for resumption of his Indian citizenship.

3. Earlier, Pranav filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras as his application in Form XXV was not considered. Ultimately, it was revealed that Pranav had not paid the necessary fees. Therefore, the High Court permitted Pranav to pay the required fees by the order dated 30th November 2017. The said order was modified by a further order dated 29th November 2018 in the writ petition filed by Pranav, and the High Court directed the concerned authorities to decide the application made by Pranav. By the order dated 30th April 2019, the Ministry of Home Affairs held that Pranav was not eligible for resumption of citizenship under Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act. Pranav was advised to reapply either under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act. Pranav challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Pranav succeeded before the learned Single Judge as it was held that he was entitled to resume his citizenship in accordance with Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act. Being aggrieved, the Union of India preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal was dismissed. Therefore, Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2023 was preferred by the Union of India before this Court.

4. In the civil appeal, an order was passed by this Court on 7th December 2023, directing that the form filled up by Pranav on 5th May 2017 shall be treated as an application filed in Form L of the Citizens (Registration at Indian Consulates) Rules, 1956. A direction was issued to decide the application accordingly. An order was passed on 30th January 2024 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, holding that Pranav was not a person of Indian origin in terms of Section 5 of the 1955 Act. Therefore, he was not eligible for a grant of Indian citizenship under clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act. Being aggrieved, Pranav has filed Writ Petition (C) No.123 of 2024 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

SUBMISSIONS

5. Mr C S Vaidyanathan, the learned senior counsel appearing for Pranav, submitted that within three months of attaining majority, on 5th May 2017, Pranav declared his intention to resume Indian citizenship by filing the application in Form XXV with the Consulate Office (Consulate General of India, New York, USA). He was administered the oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India on the date of filing the application. The submission of the learned senior counsel, in short, is that apart from the fact that Pranav was entitled to resume his Indian citizenship by invoking Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act, he is deemed to be an Indian citizen under Article 8 of the Constitution of India by virtue of his grandparents’ birth in undivided India. Moreover, he was entitled to seek Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(b) of the 1955