Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIAversusPRANAV SRINIVASAN
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 792
- Decided
- 18 October 2024
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
A person whose parents ceased to be Indian citizens by operation of Section 9(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is not eligible to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2), and the definition of ‘person of Indian origin’ under Section 5(1)(b) does not include him; therefore the appeal is allowed.
Summary
The case concerned Pranav Srinivasan, born in Singapore in 1999 to parents who had renounced Indian citizenship by acquiring Singapore citizenship in 1998. Pranav applied in 2017 for resumption of Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the High Court held he was entitled to it, but the Union appealed. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional provisions on citizenship (Articles 5, 6, 8) and the statutory scheme of the Citizenship Act, particularly the definition of “person of Indian origin” under Section 5(1)(b) and the effect of Section 9(1) on voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship. It held that Pranav’s parents ceased to be Indian citizens by operation of Section 9(1) before his birth, making him ineligible under Section 5(1)(b) and that Section 8(2) does not apply because his parents did not renounce citizenship by declaration. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the writ petition, while leaving open the possibility of applying under clause (f) of Section 5(1).
Issues considered
- Whether Article 8 of the Constitution applies to a person born abroad after the commencement of the Constitution for citizenship
- Whether the respondent qualifies as a ‘person of Indian origin’ under Explanation 2 to Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955
- Whether Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 can be invoked for resumption of citizenship when the parents ceased to be citizens by operation of Section 9(1)
- Whether the High Court erred in holding that the respondent could resume citizenship under Section 8(2)
- Whether the Supreme Court may exercise power under Article 142 to grant citizenship in this case
Legislation cited
- Citizenship Act, 1955s. Section 3, s. Section 4, s. Section 5, s. Section 8, s. Section 9
- Citizenship Rules, 2009s. Rule 24
- Constitution of Indias. Article 10, s. Article 11, s. Article 5, s. Article 6, s. Article 8, s. Article 9
- Government of India Act, 1935
Subjects
CitizenshipIndian citizenshipApplication for citizenshipUndivided IndiaArticle 5 of the ConstitutionArticle 6 of the ConstitutionArticle 8 of the ConstitutionSection 8 of Citizenship Act, 1955Section 5 of Citizenship Act, 1955Commencement of the ConstitutionIndian originVoluntarily acquired citizenshipRenouncing citizenship
Judgment
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 736 : 2024 INSC 792
Union of India
v.
Pranav Srinivasan
(Civil Appeal No. 5932 of 2023)
18 October 2024
[Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The issue involved in the instant cases concerns the grant of Indian
citizenship to the respondent.
Headnotes
Constitution of India – Arts.5, 6, 7, 8 – Citizenship Act, 1955 –
ss.5, 8 – Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Respondent’s grandparents
were born in India before independence – His parents were born
in India, father in 1963 and mother in 1972 – On 19.12.1998, his
parents adopted citizenship of Singapore – Respondent was
born on 01.03.1999 in Singapore – On 05.05.2017, respondent
sought for resumption of his Indian citizenship, however, he
was found ineligible u/s. 5 of the 1955 Act – Writ petition was
filed by the respondent before the High Court – High Court held
that he was entitled to resume his citizenship in accordance
with s.8(2) of the 1955 Act – Correctness:
Held: On the face of it, Article 5 of the Constitution will apply to a
person who is domiciled in the territory of India on 26.01.1950 –
Therefore, this provision will not apply in the present case – Article 6
will have no application as it applies to persons who have migrated
to India from Pakistan – If Article 8 was intended to apply to a
foreign national born after the commencement of the Constitution,
the provision would not be referring to “who is ordinarily residing in
any country outside India so defined” – So defined means India as
defined in the 1935 Act, as originally enacted – 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 – Article 8 will
not have application on respondent’s case – As far as citizenship
* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 737
Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan
Act is concerned, for applicability of clause (b) of sub-section (1)
of Section 5 of the 1955 Act, respondent will have to establish that
he is a person of Indian origin who is an ordinary resident in any
country or place outside undivided India – In view of explanation 2
to Section 5, a person shall be deemed to be of Indian origin if (i)
he or either of his parents were born in undivided India or (ii) in any
such other territory which was not part of undivided India, but became
part of India after 15.08.1947 – Respondent and both his parents
were not born in the undivided India – His parents were born after
independence in independent India – They were not born in any
part of undivided India or any territory that became part of India
after 15.08.1947 – Therefore, Section 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Act has no
application – In the instant case, it is not in dispute that respondent’s
parents acquired Singapore citizenship on 19.12.1998, before his
birth when he was in the womb – Therefore, immediately after the
voluntary acquisition of Singapore citizenship, respondent’s parents
ceased to be citizens of India by the operation of Section 9(1) –
Section 8(1) will apply if any citizen of India of full age and capacity
makes, in the prescribed manner, a declaration renouncing his Indian
Citizenship – There was no occasion for respondent’s parents to
renounce their citizenship on 20.04.2012 by the mode provided
under Section 8(1) as they had already ceased to be citizens of
India on 19.12.1998 when they voluntarily acquired the citizenship
of Singapore – As respondent’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 respondent – Therefore, Section 8(2) will not
assist respondent – Therefore, the view taken by the High Court
was completely erroneous as the High Court held that respondent
had resumed Indian citizenship under sub-section (2) of Section 8
of the 1955 Act – However, respondent not precluded from applying
for citizenship by invoking clause (f) of sub-section (1) of s.5 of the
1955 Act. [Paras 16, 18, 19, 20, 23]
Case Law Cited
State of U.P. v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj [1963] 1 SCR 1 : (1962)
45 ITR 414 : 1962 SCC OnLine SC 12 – relied on.
Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India [Election Commission
Appointments] [2023] 9 SCR 1 : (2023) 6 SCC 161; Central Board
of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Another. v. State of Maharashtra
& Anr. [2023] 1 SCR 293 : (2023) 4 SCC 541 – referred to.
738 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Citizenship Act, 1955; Government of India
Act, 1935; Citizenship Rules, 2009.
List of Keywords
Citizenship; Indian citizenship; Application for citizenship; Undivided
India; Article 5 of the Constitution; Article 6 of the Constitution; Article 8
of the Constitution; Section 8 of Citizenship Act, 1955; Section 5 of
Citizenship Act, 1955; Commencement of the Constitution; Indian
origin; Voluntarily acquired the citizenship; Renouncing citizenship.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
5932 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in WA No. 2265 of 2022
With
Writ Petition(C) No. 123 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Shailesh Madiyal, Vinayak Sharma, Sharath
Nambiar, Chitransh Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, B K Satija,
Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Sarthak Karol, Kritagya Kait, Rajan
Kumar Chourasia, Madhav Singhal, Mrs. Sansrithi Pathak, Akshay
Nagarajan, Ms. Sanya Sud, Advs. for the Appellant.
C S Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv., Akshay N, Vinayak Goel, Dr. Vinod
Kumar Tewari, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Bhoopesh Pandey, Ms.
Priyanka Dubey, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 739
Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan
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 India in 1963 and 1972, respectively. On 19th December 1998,
Pranav’s parents adopted citizenship of Singapore. 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
740 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 Act.
6. The learned senior counsel invited our attention to Articles 5 and
6 of the Constitution, which specifically use the expression “at the
commencement of this Constitution.” In contrast, Article 8 uses
the expression “whether before or after commencement of the
Constitution of India”. Therefore, Article 8, as opposed to Articles 5
and 6, applies even after the commencement of the Constitution. He
submitted that by the language used in Section 5 of the 1955 Act, it
is crystal clear that a person can acquire Indian citizenship either by
virtue of constitutional provisions or by taking recourse to the 1955
Act. Article 8 is an independent and distinct source of citizenship.
7. It was submitted that Pranav’s grandparents were born in the State
of Tamil Nadu, which was part of undivided India before 15th August
1947. His maternal grandparents were also born in the undivided India
before independence. Therefore, under Article 8, Pranav qualified to
become an Indian citizen. It is submitted that the failure of the Union
of India to recognise and enforce a constitutional provision is an
arbitrary exercise of power. The learned senior counsel relied upon
a decision of this Court in the case of Anoop Baranwal v. Union
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 741
Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan
of India [Election Commission Appointments]1 in the context of
the right to vote. He also relied upon another decision in the case of
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Another. v. State
of Maharashtra & Anr.,2 wherein this Court held that the role of the
constitutional Courts is to interpret the Constitution, considering the
changing needs of the society.
8. The learned senior counsel submitted that, independently of the
constitutional provisions, Pranav is entitled to be registered as an
Indian citizen under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the
1955 Act. He submitted that Pranav is a person of Indian origin as
his parents were born within the territory of India after independence.
He submitted that a common sense of interpretation would have to
be given to the phrase “in such other territory which became part of
India after the 15th day of August 1947,” occurring in Explanation-2 to
Section 5 of the 1955 Act. Therefore, it includes all those territories
which were part of the undivided India and continued to be a part
of the independent India. He submitted that if the interpretation put
to the said provision by the Union of India is accepted, persons
whose parents were born in the States like Goa and Sikkim would
be the persons of Indian origin but who are born in the territories
which continued to be a part of India after independence, would be
denied the same benefit. Therefore, a person of Indian origin can
acquire Indian citizenship if it is shown that the grandparents were
born in the undivided India and the parents were born in India after
its independence.
9. He submitted that the words “minor child”, occurring in Section 8(2) of
the 1955 Act, will include an unborn child or a child in the womb. He
submitted that Section 3 of the 1955 Act talks about the acquisition
of citizenship by birth, whereas Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act talks
about a minor child. Therefore, a child need not have been born in
India to be entitled to the benefit of seeking resumption of Indian
citizenship under Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act.
10. Mr K M Nataraj, the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG)
appearing for the Union of India, submitted that Articles 5 to 9 of
the Constitution of India determine who the Indian citizens were
1 [2023] 9 SCR 1 : (2023) 6 SCC 161
2 [2023] 1 SCR 293 : (2023) 4 SCC 541
742 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
at the commencement of the Constitution. These Articles provide
for the acquisition of citizenship by the persons eligible therein
at the commencement of the Constitution. Article 9 disqualifies a
person from acquiring citizenship under Articles 5, 6 or 8 if such
person has voluntarily acquired citizenship of any foreign State. He
also invited our attention to Articles 10 and 11. He submitted that
Article 10 provides that every person who is or is deemed to be a
citizen of India under the provisions of Part II of the Constitution of
India shall, subject to the provisions of any law that the Parliament
may make, continue to be such citizen. Article 11 protects the
Parliament’s power to make provisions concerning the acquisition
and termination of citizenship.
11. The learned ASG relied upon the speech of the late Dr Babasaheb
Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly, which indicated that the
provisions in the Constitution deal with citizenship on the date of
commencement of the Constitution. Therefore, his submission
is that Articles 5 to 9 determine who are Indian citizens at the
commencement of the Constitution of India. After the enactment
of the 1955 Act, India’s citizenship can be acquired, terminated, or
otherwise regulated under the provisions thereof. He submitted that
Pranav is not a person of Indian origin. Therefore, Section 5(1)(b)
of the 1955 Act will not apply.
12. He submitted that Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act will have no application.
He submitted that Pranav’s parents lost their citizenship the moment
they acquired the citizenship of Singapore. When Pranav was born,
his parents were no longer Indian citizens. They lost Indian citizenship
upon the acquisition of Singapore citizenship. He would, therefore,
submit that Pranav is not entitled to Indian citizenship.
13. The learned senior counsel appearing for Pranav submitted that
Article 8 will apply in the present case. He submitted that it was never
the stand of the Union of India before the High Court that the Indian
citizenship of Pranav’s parents came to an end by termination. This
stand is taken for the first time before this Court by the Union of India.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
14. Part II of the Constitution deals with ‘Citizenship’. It consists of
Articles 5 to 11, which read thus:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 743
Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan
“5. Citizenship at the commencement of the
Constitution.— At the commencement of this Constitution
every person who has his domicile in the territory of India
and—
(a) who was born in the territory of India; or
(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory
of India; or
(c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory
of India for not less than five years immediately
preceding such commencement,
shall be a citizen of India.
6. Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have
migrated to India from Pakistan.—Notwithstanding
anything in Article 5, a person who has migrated to
the territory of India from the territory now included in
Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the
commencement of this Constitution if—
(a) he or either of his parents or any of his grand-
parents was born in India as defined in the
Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally
enacted); and
(b) (i) in the case where such person has so
migrated before the nineteenth day of July, 1948,
he has been ordinarily resident in the territory of
India since the date of his migration, or
(ii) in the case where such person has so migrated
on or after the nineteenth day of July, 1948, he
has been registered as a citizen of India by an
officer appointed in that behalf by the Government
of the Dominion of India on an application
made by him therefor to such officer before the
commencement of this Constitution in the form
and manner prescribed by that Government:
Provided that no person shall be so registered unless he
has been resident in the territory of India for at least six
months immediately preceding the date of his application.
744 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
7. Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan.—
Notwithstanding anything in Articles 5 and 6, a person who
has after the first day of March, 1947, migrated from the
territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan
shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India:
Provided that nothing in this article shall apply to a person
who, after having so migrated to the territory now included
in Pakistan, has returned to the territory of India under a
permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by or
under the authority of any law and every such person shall
for the purposes of clause (b) of Article 6 be deemed to
have migrated to the territory of India after the nineteenth
day of July, 1948.
8. Rights of citizenship of certain persons of Indian
origin residing outside India.— Notwithstanding anything
in Article 5, any person who or either of whose parents
or any of whose grand-parents was born in India as
defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally
enacted), and who is ordinarily residing in any country
outside India as so defined shall be deemed to be a
citizen of India if he has been registered as a citizen of
India by the diplomatic or consular representative of India
in the country where he is for the time being residing on
an application made by him therefor to such diplomatic
or consular representative, whether before or after the
commencement of this Constitution, in the form and manner
prescribed by the Government of the Dominion of India
or the Government of India.
9. Persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign
State not to be citizens.— No person shall be a citizen of
India by virtue of Article 5, or be deemed to be a citizen of
India by virtue of Article 6 or Article 8, if he has voluntarily
acquired the citizenship of any foreign State.
10. Continuance of the rights of citizenship.— Every
person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under
any of the foregoing provisions of this Part shall, subject to
the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament,
continue to be such citizen.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 745
Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan
11. Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by
law.—Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part
shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any
provision with respect to the acquisition and termination
of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.”
On the face of it, Article 5 will apply to a person who is domiciled in
the territory of India on 26th January 1950. Therefore, this provision
will not apply in the present case. Article 6 will have no application
as it applies to persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan.
Article 7 deals with the rights of the citizenship of certain migrants
to Pakistan.
15. Now, let us analyse Article 8. It applies to a person:-
(i) who was born in India as defined in the Government of India
Act, 1935 (for short, ‘the 1935 Act’) as originally enacted; or
(ii) either of whose parents were born in India as defined in the
1935 Act as originally enacted; or
(iii) any of whose grandparents were born in India as defined in
the 1935 Act as originally enacted.
and
who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India so defined.
Such a person shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has
been registered as a citizen of India by the diplomatic or consular
representative of India in the country where he is for the time being
residing, on an application made by him in prescribed form before
such diplomatic or consular representative, before or after the
commencement of the Constitution. The words “before or after the
commencement of this Constitution” qualify the words “the diplomatic
or consular representative of India in the country where he is for the
time being residing”. Therefore, a person who is qualified in terms
of the first part of Article 8 can apply to the diplomatic or consular
representative of India in any country where he is residing before
or after the commencement of the Constitution. He need not apply
to the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country
where he was residing at the commencement of the Constitution.
16. If Article 8 was intended to apply to a foreign national born after
the commencement of the Constitution, the provision would not be
746 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
referring to “who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India
so defined”. So defined means India as defined in the 1935 Act,
as originally enacted. 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. If the interpretation sought to be given
on behalf of Pranav to article 8 is accepted, someone born, say
in the year 2000, who is ordinarily residing in any country outside
India as defined in the 1935 Act, as originally enacted, would be
entitled to claim citizenship of India on the ground that any of
his parents or grandparents were born in that part of Pakistan or
Bangladesh which was part of India as defined in the 1935 Act, as
originally enacted. We are giving this illustration to show that the
interpretation of Article 8 sought to be made on behalf of Pranav
would produce absurd results which the framers of the Constitution
never intended. Therefore, Article 8 will have no application to
Pranav’s case.
17. Article 10 provides that every citizen deemed to be a citizen of India
by virtue of the provisions of Articles 5 to 8 shall continue to be such
citizen subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament.
Article 11 protects the power of the Parliament to make any provision
with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship or all
the matters relating to citizenship.
CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE 1955 ACT
18. Now, we turn to the provisions of the 1955 Act. Pranav has not
claimed citizenship by birth (Section 3) or citizenship by descent
(Section 4). He has claimed citizenship under clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act. Section 5 of the 1955 Act
reads thus:
“5. Citizenship by registration.― (1) Subject to the
provisions of this section and such other conditions and
restrictions as may be prescribed, the Central Government
may, on an application made in this behalf, register as a
citizen of India any person not being an illegal migrant who
is not already such citizen by virtue of the Constitution or
of any other provision of this Act if he belongs to any of
the following categories, namely:―
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 747
Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan
(a) a person of Indian origin who is ordinarily
resident in India for seven years before making
an application for registration;
(b) a person of Indian origin who is ordinarily
resident in any country or place outside
undivided India;
(c) a person who is married to a citizen of India and
is ordinarily resident in India for seven years
before making an application for registration;
(d) minor children of persons who are citizens of
India;
(e) a person of full age and capacity whose parents
are registered as citizens of India under clause
(a) of this sub-section or sub-section (1) of
section 6;
(f) a person of full age and capacity who, or either
of his parents, was earlier citizen of independent
India, and is ordinarily resident in India for
twelve months immediately before making an
application for registration;
(g) a person of full age and capacity who has been
registered as an Overseas Citizen of India
Cardholder for five years, and who is ordinarily
resident in India for twelve months before making
an application for registration.
Explanation 1.―For the purposes of clauses (a) and (c),
an applicant shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident in
India if―
(i) he has resided in India throughout the period of
twelve months immediately before making an
application for registration; and
(ii) he has resided in India during the eight years
immediately preceding the said period of twelve
months for a period of not less than six years.
Explanation 2.―For the purposes of this sub-section,
a person shall be deemed to be of Indian origin if he,
748 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
or either of his parents, was born in undivided India
or in such other territory which became part of India
after the 15th day of August, 1947.
(1A) The Central Government, if it is satisfied that special
circumstances exist, may after recording the circumstances
in writing, relax the period of twelve months, specified in
clauses (f) and (g) and clause (i) of Explanation 1 of sub-
section (1), up to a maximum of thirty days which may be
in different breaks.
(2) No person being of full age shall be registered as a
citizen of India under sub-section (1) until he has taken
the oath of allegiance in the form specified in the Second
Schedule.
(3) No person who has renounced, or has been deprived
of, his Indian citizenship or whose Indian citizenship has
terminated, under this Act shall be registered as a citizen
of India under sub-section (1) except by order of the
Central Government.
(4) The Central Government may, if satisfied that there are
special circumstances justifying such registration, cause
any minor to be registered as a citizen of India.
(5) A person registered under this section shall be a citizen
of India by registration as from the date on which he is so
registered; and a person registered under the provisions
of clause (b)(ii) of article 6 or article 8 of the Constitution
shall be deemed to be a citizen of India by registration as
from the commencement of the Constitution or the date
on which he was so registered, whichever may be later.
(6) If the Central Government is satisfied that circumstances
exist which render it necessary to grant exemption from the
residential requirement under clause (c) of sub-section (1)
to any person or a class of persons, it may, for reasons
to be recorded in writing, grant such exemption.”
(emphasis added)
For applicability of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the
1955 Act, Pranav will have to establish that he is a person of Indian
origin who is an ordinary resident in any country or place outside
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 749
Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan
undivided India. In view of explanation 2 to Section 5, a person shall
be deemed to be of Indian origin if (i) he or either of his parents
were born in undivided India or (ii) in any such other territory which
was not part of undivided India, but became part of India after 15th
August 1947. There is no third category mentioned in the explanation.
If undivided India were to include India after independence, the
legislature would not have included the category of the person or
either of his parents being born in such other territory which became
part of India after the 15th August 1947. Section 2(h) of the 1955 Act
provides that “undivided India” means India as defined in the 1935
Act. If we read “undivided India” as India as on or after 15th August
1947, we would be doing violence to the plain language of the
Explanation. 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. Pranav and both his parents were not born
in the undivided India. His parents were born after independence
in independent India. They were not born in any part of undivided
India or any territory that became part of India after 15th August
1947. Therefore, Section 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Act has no application.
19. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to Sections 8 and 9 of the 1955
Act, which read thus:
“8. Renunciation of citizenship.― (1) If any citizen of
India of full age and capacity, makes in the prescribed
manner a declaration renouncing his Indian Citizenship, the
declaration shall be registered by the prescribed authority;
and, upon such registration, that person shall cease to be
a citizen of India:
Provided that if any such declaration is made during any
war in which India may be engaged, registration thereof
shall be withheld until the Central Government otherwise
directs.
(2) Where a person ceases to be a citizen of India under
sub-section (1), every minor child of that person shall
thereupon cease to be a citizen of India:
Provided that any such child may, within one year after
attaining full age, make a declaration in the prescribed form
750 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and manner that he wishes to resume Indian citizenship
and shall thereupon again become a citizen of India.
9. Termination of citizenship.—(1) Any citizen of
India who by naturalisation, registration or otherwise
voluntarily acquires, or has at any time between the
26th January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act
voluntarily acquired, the citizenship of another country
shall, upon such acquisition or, as the case may be,
such commencement, cease to be a citizen of India:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply
to a citizen of India who, during any war in which India
may be engaged, voluntarily acquires the citizenship
of another country, until the Central Government
otherwise directs.
(2) If any question arises as to whether, when or how any
citizen of India has acquired the citizenship of another
country, it shall be determined by such authority, in such
manner, and having regard to such rules of evidence, as
may be prescribed in this behalf.”
(emphasis added)
In view of Section 9(1), those citizens of India who voluntarily acquire
citizenship of another Country after the commencement of the 1955
Act, or between 26th January 1950 and the date of the commencement
of the 1955 Act, upon acquisition of such citizenship, automatically
cease to be citizens of India. It is not in dispute that Pranav’s parents
acquired Singapore citizenship on 19th December 1998, before his
birth when he was in the womb. Therefore, immediately after the
voluntary acquisition of Singapore citizenship, Pranav’s parents
ceased to be citizens of India by the operation of Section 9(1).
20. Section 8(1) will apply if any citizen of India of full age and capacity
makes, in the prescribed manner, a declaration renouncing his Indian
Citizenship. Section 8(1) will not apply to the involuntary cessation
of citizenship by the operation of law as provided in Section 9(1).
Section 8(2) will apply only if the minor child’s parents had voluntarily
renounced citizenship by making a declaration. In the facts of the
case, on 19th December 1998, when Pranav’s parents voluntarily
acquired citizens of Singapore, they immediately ceased to be
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 751
Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan
citizens of India by operation of Section 9(1). 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.
21. In the case of State of U.P. v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj,3 this Court
held thus:
“8. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . … .. .. . …..
The fundamental and elementary rule of construction
is that the words and phrases used by the legislature
shall be given their ordinary meaning and shall be
construed according to the rules of grammar. When
a language is plain and unambiguous and admits of
only one meaning, no question of construction of a
statute arises, for the Act speaks for itself. It is a well-
recognized rule of construction that the meaning must be
collected from the expressed intention of the legislature.”
(emphasis added)
The language used in the provisions of the 1955 Act is plain and
simple. Hence, the same should be given ordinary and natural
meaning. Moreover, we are dealing with a law which provides for the
grant of citizenship of India to foreign nationals. There is no scope
to bring equitable considerations while interpreting such a statute.
As the language of Sections 5, 8 and 9 is plain and simple, there is
no scope for its liberal interpretation. Citizenship of India cannot be
conferred on foreign citizens by doing violence to the plain language
of the 1955 Act.
22. Now, only clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act
survives for consideration. However, under the said provision, Pranav
can apply for Indian citizenship provided he is an ordinary resident of
India for twelve months immediately preceding the date of application.
3 [1963] 1 SCR 1 : (1962) 45 ITR 414 : 1962 SCC OnLine SC 12
752 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
There is a power to relax the period of twelve months vested in the
Central Government if it is satisfied that special circumstances exist.
That is the provision in sub-section (1A) of Section 5 of the 1955
Act. We may note here that it is not the case made out that Pranav
fulfils the criteria in clause (g) of Section 5(1) of the 1955 Act.
23. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court was completely erroneous
as the High Court held that Pranav had resumed Indian citizenship
under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 1955 Act.
24. Some arguments were made that this Court should exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The power under Article 142 is an extraordinary power which should
be exercised to deal with exceptional circumstances. We do not think
that this case warrants the exercise of power under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India. This Court will have to be very circumspect
when it comes to the exercise of power under Article 142 for the
grant of citizenship of India to a foreign national.
25. Therefore, the impugned orders in Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2023
are set aside. Appeal is allowed. Writ Petition (C) No.123 of 2024
is dismissed. However, this judgment will not preclude Pranav from
applying for citizenship by invoking clause (f) of sub-section (1) of
Section 5 of the 1955 Act. It will also be open for him to apply to
the Central Government for the exercise of power under sub-section
(1A) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act of relaxation of the period of twelve
months provided in clause (f) of sub-section (1) Section 5 of the
1955 Act.
Result of the Case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Citizenship"Sign in to search