Indian Citizenship Cannot Be Conferred On Foreign Citizens By Doing Violence To Plain Language Of Citizenship Act: Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Judgment
The Supreme Court observed that the Citizenship of India cannot be conferred on foreign citizens by doing violence to the plain language of the Citizenship Act 1955.
The Court set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court which allowed a person to “resume” his citizenship in accordance with Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “Therefore, there was no occasion for Pranav’s parents to renounce their citizenship on 20th April 2012 by the mode provided under Section 8(1) as they had already ceased to be citizens of India on 19th December 1998 when they voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Singapore. As Pranav’s parents ceased to be citizens of India, not voluntarily but by the operation of Section 9(1), Section 8(2) does not apply to Pranav. Therefore, Section 8(2) will not assist Pranav.”
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj represented the appellant, while Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan appeared for the respondent.
The respondent, born in Singapore, was the son of Indian parents who became Singaporean citizens before his birth. The respondent’s paternal and maternal grandparents were born in undivided India, and his parents were born in India post-independence. Following his birth, his parents renounced their Indian citizenship in 2012. Upon reaching the age of majority, the respondent filed an application for the resumption of Indian citizenship under Form XXV as prescribed by Rule 24 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) rejected his application, advising him to apply under other relevant sections of the Citizenship Act. This rejection was challenged in the High Court, where the respondent succeeded before a Single Bench. The decision was upheld by the Division Bench, which led to the Union of India filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The respondent submitted that he was entitled to resume his Indian citizenship by invoking Section 8(2) of the Act, as he was deemed to be an Indian citizen under Article 8 of the Constitution by virtue of his grandparents’ birth in undivided India. Moreover, he claimed that he was entitled to seek Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Act.
The Central Government on the other hand submitted that the respondent’s parents lost their citizenship the moment they acquired the citizenship of Singapore, therefore, when the respondent was born, his parents were no longer Indian citizens. It was argued that Section 8(2) of the Act was, therefore, not applicable.
The Supreme Court explained that Article 8 of the Constitution was not applicable in the present case it provided that a person would be deemed to be a citizen of India if he was registered as a citizen of India by a diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where he was for the time being residing, on an application made by him in prescribed form before such diplomatic or consular representative.
“Moreover, Article 8 uses the expression ‘who is ordinarily residing’. Therefore, the provision will only apply to someone ordinarily residing on the date of commencement of the Constitution in any country outside India as defined in the 1935 Act, as originally enacted,” the Bench remarked.
The Court noted that when the respondent’s parents voluntarily acquired citizens of Singapore, they immediately ceased to be citizens of India by operation of Section 9(1) of the Act. “Section 8(2) will apply only if the minor child's parents had voluntarily renounced citizenship by making a declaration,” it explained.
The Bench noted that both the respondent and his parents were not born in the undivided India. His parents were born after independence in independent India. Therefore, Section 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Act had no application, the Court explained.
“We cannot read something that is not in the provision, especially when there is no ambiguity in the provision. Therefore, we cannot read Explanation 2 the way the learned senior counsel of Pranav wants us to read,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “As Pranav’s parents ceased to be citizens of India, not voluntarily but by the operation of Section 9(1), Section 8(2) does not apply to Pranav. Therefore, Section 8(2) will not assist Pranav.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 792)
Appearance:
Appellant: ASG K.M. Nataraj; Advocates Shailesh Madiyal, Vinayak Sharma, Sharath Nambiar, Chitransh Sharma, B K Satija, Shraddha Deshmukh, Sarthak Karol, Kritagya Kait, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Madhav Singhal and Sansrithi Pathak; AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma,
Respondent: Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan; Advocates Akshay Nagarajan, Akshay N, Vinayak Goel, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Bhoopesh Pandey and Priyanka Dubey; AOR Sanya Sud Vinod and Kumar Tewari
