Court Upholds Minor's Right to Indian Passport Despite Mother's Foreign Nationality

Background

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Bombay at Goa addressed the case of Miss Chrisella Valanka Kushi Raj Naidu, a 16-year-old minor seeking to renew her Indian passport. The petitioner, represented by her mother, Ms. Cony Fernandes , challenged the decision of the Indian High Commission in London, which denied her passport application on the grounds that she was a minor in the custody of a foreign national.

Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Abhijeet Kamat , argued that Chrisella is an Indian citizen by birth and has not acquired citizenship of any other country. He contended that the refusal to issue a passport based on her mother's foreign nationality was not in accordance with the Passport Act, 1967, and violated her fundamental right to travel. Conversely, the respondents, represented by Mr. Raviraj Chodankar , maintained that the petitioner was ineligible for an Indian passport due to her mother's foreign citizenship and the implications of being a single parent minor child.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The court analyzed the legal framework surrounding citizenship and passport issuance, referencing the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the Passports Act, 1967. It emphasized that Chrisella, born in India, is a citizen by birth and that her mother's foreign nationality does not affect her citizenship status. The court highlighted that the law does not stipulate that a minor loses Indian citizenship merely because the custodial parent holds foreign nationality. The ruling also referenced previous judgments that established the rights of minors in similar circumstances.

Decision

The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the refusal to issue an Indian passport was unsustainable. The court ordered the Indian High Commission to process the passport application, reinforcing that the petitioner is entitled to her Indian citizenship and the associated rights, including the right to travel. This decision underscores the legal principle that a child cannot be rendered stateless due to the nationality of a parent.