Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal concerning the grant of citizenship to the respondent, the Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Agustine George Masih, JJ., said that the language used in the provisions of the 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, hence 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.
Background:
Paternal grandparents of the respondent were born in India before independence and father and mother of the respondent were born in 1963 and 1972 respectively. In 1998, the respondent’s parents adopted citizenship of Singapore. In 1999, the respondent was born in Singapore as its citizen.
The respondent stated that in April 2012, his parents renounced their Indian citizenship. On 5-5-2017, when the respondent was 18 years, 2 months and 4 days old, he applied in Form XXV specified under Rule 24 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009, read with Section of (the 1955 Act) for resumption of his Indian citizenship.
The Ministry of Home Affairs via their order dated 30-4-2019 held that the respondent was not eligible for resumption of citizenship under Section of the and was advised to reapply either under clause (f) or clause (g) of Section of the . The respondent challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before Single Judge of Madras High Court and succeeded there as it was held that he was entitled to resume his citizenship in accordance with Section of the . Being aggrieved, the Union of India preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal was dismissed.
The Union filed an appeal before the Supreme Court wherein it was directed that the form filled up by respondent in 2017 shall be treated as an application filed in Form L of the Citizens (Registration at Indian Consulates) Rules, 1956.
An order was passed on 30-1-2024 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, holding that the respondent was not a person of Indian origin in terms of Section of the , therefore, he was not eligible for a grant of Indian citizenship under Section of the .
Contentions:
Counsel for the respondent argued that Articles and of the , specifically uses the expression “at the commencement of this Constitution.” In contrast, Article 8 uses the expression “whether before or after commencement of the ”. Therefore, Article 8, as opposed to Articles 5 and 6, applies even after the commencement of the Constitution. It was submitted that by the language used in Section of the , 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. It was stated that Article 8 is an independent and distinct source of citizenship. The respondent further 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 of the .
Per contra, the appellant contended that Articles 5 to 9 determine who are Indian citizens at the commencement of the Constitution. After the enactment of the , India’s citizenship can be acquired, terminated, or otherwise regulated under the provisions thereof. It was submitted that respondent is not a person of Indian origin, therefore, Section of the will not apply. Furthermore, respondent’s parents lost their citizenship the moment they acquired the citizenship of Singapore. When respondent was born, his parents were no longer Indian citizens. They lost Indian citizenship upon the acquisition of Singapore’s citizenship; therefore, the respondent is not entitled to Indian citizenship.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the matter, the Court delved into the relevant Constitutional provisions dealing with citizenship. It was noted that on the face of it, Article 5 will apply to a person who is domiciled in the territory of India on 26-1-1950; therefore, this provision will not apply in the instant case. Article 6 will have no application as it applies to persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan.
Delving into Article of the , the Court pointed out that 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.
The Court explained that 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 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 , as originally enacted.
The Court gave an illustration explaining that if the interpretation sought to be given on behalf of the respondent 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 , 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 , as originally enacted. “We are giving this illustration to show that the interpretation of Article 8 sought to be made on behalf of respondent would produce absurd results which the framers of the Constitution never intended”. Therefore, Article 8 will have no application to respondent’s case.
Then the Court took note of the provisions concerned in the . It was pointed out that the respondent has claimed citizenship under Section of the , which deals with citizenship by registration. The Court explained that for Section 5(1)(b) to be applicable, the 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 15-8-1947. 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 15-8-1947.
The Court stated that if “undivided India” is read as India as on or after 15-8-1947, then it 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, Section of the has no application in the instant case as well.
Coming onto Sections 8 and 9 the Court stated that in view of Section 9(1), those citizens of India who voluntarily acquire citizenship of another Country after the commencement of the , or between 26-1-1950 and the date of the commencement of the , upon acquisition of such citizenship, automatically cease to be citizens of India. The respondent’s parents acquired Singapore citizenship in 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).
The Court further explained that 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).
The Court explained Section 8(2) will apply only if the minor child’s parents had voluntarily renounced citizenship by making a declaration. As per the facts of the instant case, there was no occasion for respondent’s parents to renounce their citizenship in 2012 by the mode provided under Section 8(1) as they had already ceased to be citizens of India in 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 the respondent’s case.
Considering Section of the , the Court pointed out that respondent can apply for citizenship under this Section provided he is an ordinary resident of India for twelve months immediately preceding the date of application. There is a power to relax the period of twelve months vested in the Central Government if it is satisfied that special circumstances exist.
Decision:
With the afore-stated analysis the Court allowed the appeal and clarified that this decision will not prohibit the respondent from applying for citizenship by invoking S. 5(1)(f) and it will also be open for him to apply to the Central Government for the exercise of power under Section of the of relaxation of the period of twelve months.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5932 of 2023 Appellants : Union of India Respondents : Pranav Srinivasan | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): K M Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) for Union of India For Respondent(s): C.S Vaidyanathan, Senior counsel for respondent |
CORAM :
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .