Children Of Those Who Acquired Foreign Citizenship Can't Resume Indian Citizenship Under Section 8(2) Of Citizenship Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court pronounced an important judgment on Friday (October 18) dealing with various provisions relating to Indian citizenship. 

The Court clarified that when a person acquires a foreign citizenship, the cessation of Indian citizenship happens by operation of law by virtue of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act. Hence, such cessation of citizenship cannot be regarded as voluntary. Therefore, children of such persons cannot seek to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act. As per Section 8(2), children of persons who have voluntarily renounced Indian citizenship can seek Indian citizenship within one year of attaining majority. The Court interpreted that this option is not available for children of those who acquired foreign citizenship.

The Court also clarified that a person who was born outside India after the commencement of the Constitution cannot seek citizenship under Article 8 of the Constitution on the ground that his grandparents were born in the undivided India.

The Court held that allowing such an interpretation would lead to "absurd results", as foreign nationals born long after the independence, by claiming that their grandparents were born in the undivided India.

"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 So defined means India as defined in the 1935 Act, as originally enacted.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residing on the date of commencement of the Constitution in any country outside India as defined in the 1935 Act, as originally enacted."

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said this while allowing an appeal filed by Centre against Madras HC judgement that allowed a Singaporean citizen by birth to resume Indian citizenship under section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act 1955 on the ground that his parents had originally been Indian citizens before acquiring Singaporean citizenship. The respondent had also claimed Indian citizenship under Article 8 of the Constitution.

The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, nor was he eligible for citizenship under Section 5(1)(b) or Article 8 of the Constitution.

"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 citizens of India by operation of Section 9(1). Therefore, there was no occasion for Pranav's parents to renounce their citizenship...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."  

However, the Court left open the possibility for respondent Pranav Srinivasan to apply for Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(f), which permits individuals who, or whose parents, were earlier citizens of independent India, to apply for citizenship if they are ordinary Indian residents for 12 months before applying. The Court said that it is open for him to seek a relaxation of the residency requirement from the Central Government.

Justice Abhay Oka pronounced the decision:

“We are not accepting the contentions raised by the respondent in the appeal. We have said that the only remedy for him is to apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f).”

The Court refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant citizenship to the respondent. "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."

The Union of India had denied the respondent's application under section 8(2). Section 8(2) provides that when a person renounces Indian citizenship, their minor children also lose Indian citizenship. However, such children can regain Indian citizenship by making a declaration within one year of turning 18, stating their wish to resume Indian citizenship.

The Madras High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, against Pranav Srinivasan, regarding his claim to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act.

Facts

Srinivasan's parents, originally Indian citizens, took up Singaporean citizenship in December 1998, after settling there. He was born in Singapore in March 1999, thereby acquiring Singaporean citizenship by birth. Upon reaching the age of majority, Srinivasan made a declaration in May 2017 before the Indian Consulate in New York to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Act.

The application was not accepted. Instead, the authorities said that Pranav should apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f)/(g) of the Act. However, the single judge of the Madras High Court ruled in his favor, prompting the Government of India to appeal the decision before the division bench.

The Division Bench noted that the Citizenship Act under Section 8(2) allows minors whose parents renounced their Indian citizenship to make a declaration of intention to resume Indian citizenship within one year of attaining the age of majority. In this case, Srinivasan had made the declaration within the prescribed time. The Court held that the provisions of Section 8(2) applied to the respondent since he had fulfilled the necessary conditions.

This judgment was challenged by the Union of India in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj for the Union emphasized that Srinivasan's parents voluntarily acquired Singaporean citizenship in 1998, leading to the automatic termination of their Indian citizenship under Section 9(1) of the Citizenship Act. Therefore, Section 8(2) was inapplicable, as the cessation of citizenship occurred by operation of law, not by voluntary renunciation.

The Union also argued that Pranav was not a person of Indian origin as per Section 5(1)(b) (a person of Indian origin who is ordinarily resident in any country or place outside undivided India) of the Citizenship Act, since neither he nor his parents were born in undivided India. Therefore, he was not eligible for citizenship under that provision.

Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan for Srinivasan contended that he was entitled to resume his Indian citizenship by invoking Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act, and he is also deemed to be an Indian citizen under Article 8 of the Constitution by virtue of his grandparents' birth in undivided India. Further, he claimed to be entitled to seek Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Act.

Citizenship under Article 8 of the Constitution

Srinivasan argued that his grandparents were born in Tamil Nadu, which was part of undivided India before August 15, 1947. His maternal grandparents were also born in undivided India before independence. Therefore, under Article 8 of the Constitution, he was eligible for Indian citizenship. Article 8 grants citizenship to persons of Indian origin residing outside India if their parents or grandparents were born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935.

The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation. The Court held that Article 8 was not intended to apply to individuals like Srinivasan, who were born after the commencement of the Constitution. If his interpretation were accepted, it would lead to absurd outcomes where individuals born long after independence could claim citizenship based solely on their ancestry, which was not the framers' intention, the court observed.

"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."

Citizenship Act

The Court held that for Section 5(1)(b) to apply, Srinivasan had to establish that either of his parents were born in undivided India (India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935). Explanation 2 to Section 5 provides that 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 other territory which was not part of undivided India but became part of India after 15th August 1947.

"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", the Court observed.

As both his parents were born in Tamil Nadu after independence, they did not fall under this category, making him ineligible for citizenship under Section 5(1)(b), the Court held.

"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", the Court held.

The Court 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."

Case no. – C.A. No. 5932/2023 Diary No. 21809 / 2023

Case Title – Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 816