Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL For Dual Citizenship For Indian Diaspora

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a PIL seeking grant of dual citizenship for Indian diaspora, holding their citizenship presently at some other foreign country.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the issue falls within the domain of the Parliament and it is not for the court to decide or pass directions on it.

The PIL moved by an organisation, Pravasi Legal Cell, contended that under the existing Indian law, Indian Citizenship of an individual will be automatically forfeited once he acquires the passport of a foreign country.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that recently, the Union External Affairs Minister said that dual citizenship is an "alive debate.”

The bench remarked that its hands are tied by virtue of Article 9 (Persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign State not to be citizens) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 9 (Termination of citizenship) of the Citizenship Act.

Virtually there is a prohibition, the bench said.

“We can't ask them to take a call on this. They have to see national security...it has wide ramifications,” the court remarked, adding that the issue has to be taken by the Parliament of India and no one else.

“The parliament is in session. Don't tell us there is no mechanism where you can't raise this issue their through an MP. And Minister has said they are alive of the matter, let them decide,” the court said.

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn.

The plea said that the grant of dual citizenship will create “appreciable contributions” from the Indian diaspora towards investment, trade, tourism, philanthropic activities, education and art in India.

In August last year, the petitioner organisation had written a representation to the authorities seeking similar relief. The plea alternatively sought a direction on the authorities to consider the said representation.

“It is submitted that while Article 11 allows Parliament discretion in questions of citizenship, it must be understood to contain some implied limitations on the use of such discretion. At present nearly 130 countries provide Dual citizenship. Among few countries provide dual citizenship with few restrictions. Most of the countries among the 130 countries are developed and developing countries,” the plea read.

It added that denial of dual citizenship rights to a significant number of Indians settled outside India, causes a hurdle to the fulfilment of the cultural rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.

Furthermore, the organisation had contended that Ge ant of dual citizenship would not only empower the Indian diaspora to contribute more meaningfully to Indian society but also “foster a stronger sense of belonging and engagement” with their cultural identity.

“…without dual citizenship, many members of the diaspora may hesitate to invest or engage in entrepreneurial ventures in India due to uncertainties surrounding their legal status and rights. By granting dual citizenship rights, India can leverage the expertise and capital of its diaspora to stimulate innovation, create employment opportunities, and bolster economic progress,” it read.

The plea was filed through Advocate Robin Raju.

Title: Pravasi Legal Cell v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 861