Citizenship Act cannot be liberally interpreted to confer citizenship on foreigners: Supreme Court

There is no scope for a liberal interpretation of the Citizenship Act of 1955 when it comes to granting Indian citizenship to foreign nationals, the Supreme Court recently observed [Union of India v Pranav Srinivasan].

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih said the Court cannot indulge in "violence" towards the statute to accommodate any equitable consideration for persons seeking citizenship.

"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," it observed.

The Bench added that the language of Sections 5, 8 and 9 of the Act 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," it held.

The observations came while setting aside a May 2022 ruling of the Madras High Court. The High Court had held that even if parents of a person renounce their Indian citizenship, their unborn child is entitled to claim Indian citizenship.

Justice Anita Sumanth had held so while allowing a plea by one Pranav Srinivasan seeking Indian citizenship. Srinivasan had moved the High Court to quash a 2019 Union Home Ministry order that rejected his plea.

His parents, who were Indian citizens, had renounced their citizenship and become Singapore citizens in December 1998. His mother was pregnant during the relevant period with Srinivasan. Srinivasan eventually became a Singapore citizen by birth.

Upon being an adult, he sought 'resumption' of his Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act.

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 Act.

Pranav challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before the Madras High Court. The High Court allowed his plea and said that Pranav was entitled to resume his Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Act.

The Central government preferred an appeal against the same before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on December 7, 2023, directed that the form filled up by Pranav 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 on January 30, 2024 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, holding that Pranav was not a person of Indian origin in terms of Section 5 of the Citizenship Act. Therefore, he was not eligible for a grant of Indian citizenship under Section 5 (1)(b) of the Act, the Centre said.

Pranav then filed the present writ petition before the Supreme Court against the said order.

Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for Pranav submitted that within three months of attaining majority, on May 5, 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.

It was contended that apart from the fact that Pranav was entitled to resume his Indian citizenship by invoking Section 8(2) of the 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 Act, it was argued.

The senior lawyer also highlighted 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 Act, it was crystal clear that a person can acquire Indian citizenship either by virtue of constitutional provisions or by taking recourse to the Citizenship Act. Article 8 is an independent and distinct source of citizenship, Vaidyanathan contended.

He pointed out that Pranav’s grandparents were born in the State of Tamil Nadu, which was part of undivided India before August 15, 1947. His maternal grandparents were also born in the undivided India before independence. Therefore, under Article 8, Pranav qualified to become an Indian citizen, Vaidyanathan asserted.

He further argued that independent of the constitutional provisions, Pranav is entitled to be registered as an Indian citizen under Section 5 (1)(b) of the Citizenship 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 August 15, 1947,” occurring in Explanation 2 to Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, it includes all those territories which were part of the undivided India and continued to be a part of the independent India.

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, it was argued.

He also 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 Act, Vaidyanathan said.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected the petitioner's reliance on Article 8 (rights of citizenship of certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India).

"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," the top court explained.

It also rejected any reliance on the Citizenship Act, and held that the High Court's reasoning was erroneous.

However, it was clarified that the petitioner can apply for citizenship under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of of the 1955 Act along with request for relaxations.

Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan appeared for Srinivasan. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appeared for the Union government.

[Read judgment]