Birthplace Cannot Deny Domicile Rights to Fully Resident Citizens: Kerala High Court Directs Issuance of Certificate

In a significant ruling for young aspirants seeking public and military service, the High Court of Kerala has clarified that administrative hurdles based strictly on birthplace are legally unsustainable when an applicant can prove permanent residence and social integration. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, presiding over the case of Sohan V.M. v. State of Kerala , underscored that while guidelines like the Kerala Land Revenue Manual are helpful, they cannot override the fundamental reality of a citizen's life.

The Case at Hand

The petitioner, Sohan V.M., had applied for a Domicile Certificate to facilitate his candidature for the 'Agniveer' scheme in the Indian Army. His application was rejected by local authorities on the narrow grounds that he was born in Kolkata, West Bengal, despite his parents and grandfather having deep familial roots in Kozhikode, Kerala.

Sohan’s evidence was substantial: he moved to his ancestral home in Naduvannur as an infant in 2007, completed his entire schooling in the state, and possessed an Aadhar card and ration card confirming his permanent residency in Kerala. Furthermore, his father had passed away in Kerala, and his mother continues to reside therein.

The Clash of Definitions: Residence vs. Birth

The state’s rejection relied on the Kerala Land Revenue Manual, which loosely suggests that a Domicile Certificate requires an individual to be both born and raised in the state. However, the court identified this as a misapplication of policy, noting that manuals are merely guidelines rather than binding statutes.

Justice Thomas observed, "The concept of 'domicile' in common parlance among state authorities is used not in its technical legal sense but as a document relating to permanent residence." He drew a firm line between the constitutional concept of an "Indian domicile"—as established in the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India —and the "popular sense" of residence required for state-level certifications.

Key Observations

The judgment heavily relied on the principle of "social belongingness," previously articulated in * Vincy Dinakaran v. State of Kerala *. Justice Thomas emphasized:

> "As far as persons whose ancestors do not belong to the State and who are not born in the State are concerned... social belongingness is to be ascertained by considering the question whether he/she has been socially adapted to the prevailing system of norms and values in the State."

Regarding the interpretation of records, the court stated:

> "It has to be therefore declared that, when issuance of a Domicile Certificate is required for an Indian citizen based on the requirement of his residence inside the country, the certificate ought to be issued based on his permanent residence and intention to reside permanently or indefinitely."

A Path Forward for Aspirants

The court concluded that the petitioner had clearly adapted to the social fabric of Kerala. Denying him the certificate based solely on his birth in Kolkata was labeled an "absolute injustice." Consequently, the High Court set aside the rejection order and directed the authorities to issue the Domicile Certificate within two days, ensuring the petitioner’s deadline for his Agniveer application could be met.

This decision serves as a powerful precedent, curbing bureaucratic rigidity. It signals that for administrative purposes, true "belonging" is defined by where an individual lives, studies, and contributes, rather than the place where they were born. For thousands of students and job seekers who move between states, this ruling offers much-needed relief from narrow, birthplace-centric administrative policies.

---

Case Ref: Sohan V.M. v. State of Kerala , W.P. (C) No. 1781 of 2026. Decided: 19-01-2026.