"We Are Still Stuck In Patriarchal Notions": Madras High Court Directs Issue Of Passport To Man Whose Mother Was Indian And Father A Srilankan Refugee
The Madras High Court recently directed the Regional Passport authority to consider the representation of a man who had applied for an Indian Passport. Since his birth certificate showed him as a Srilankan refugee, he was called upon by the passport authorities to give an explanation.Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench noted that though the petitioner's father was also a...
The Madras High Court recently directed the Regional Passport authority to consider the representation of a man who had applied for an Indian Passport. Since his birth certificate showed him as a Srilankan refugee, he was called upon by the passport authorities to give an explanation.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench noted that though the petitioner's father was also a Srilankan refugee, the fact that his mother was an Indian citizen was not disputed. The court noted that we were still stuck in patriarchal notions as the authorities automatically assumed the petitioner will partake his father's nationality while his mother remained an Indian citizen making him eligible for an Indian passport.
We are still stuck in patriarchal notions. The official must have thought that since the petitioner's father is a Srilankan refugee, the petitioner though born through an Indian citizen must also partake the father's nationality. The petitioner has offered his explanation before the respondent.
The court was thus convinced that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of relief and directed the authorities to process his application within a period of three weeks.
No adverse material has been brought to my notice. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of relief. The respondent is directed to process the petition-mentioned application and issue passport to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner will have to fulfill the other usual formalities, if any.
Noting that the Parliament was yet to enact a law relating to refugees, the court went on to explain the various International Frameworks that cover the manner in which refugees were to be treated. The court also discussed precedents in which the courts have actively come forward to grant relief to the refugees.
The court also noted that as per Section 3 (1)(b) of the Citizenship Act 1955, every person born in India on or after first day of July, 1987, but before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 and either of whose parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth shall be a citizen of India by birth.
In the present case, the petitioner was born before the cut off date i.e., January 18th 2002 which was well beyond the cut off date of December 3rd 2004. Secondly, his mother was an Indian citizen by birth. This meant that both the statutory requirements were fulfilled.
At the same time, the court noted that though the notice issued by the authorities was erroneous, they could not be blamed as the petitioner's birth certificate mentioned him as a Srilankan refugee. Thus, the court ordered accordingly.
Case Title: Neyatitus v. The Regional Passport Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.I.Romeo Roy Alfred
Counsel for Respondent: Mr.D.Saravanan, Central Govt. Standing Counsel.