Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court of India set aside the High Court’s judgment that allowed the resumption of Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Court ruled that the respondent, who had applied for resumption of Indian citizenship, did not meet the eligibility requirements under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act. However, the Court noted that the respondent could apply for Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(f), provided he meets the residency requirement, which may be relaxed under special circumstances by the Central Government.
Facts:
The respondent was born in Singapore in 1999 as a Singaporean citizen, following his parents’ renunciation of Indian citizenship in 1998. In 2017, shortly after attaining majority, he applied to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. His application was initially rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the grounds of ineligibility. The respondent challenged this decision in the High Court, which ruled in his favor. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether the respondent is entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
- Whether the respondent can be considered a person of Indian origin under Section 5(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner (respondent before the Supreme Court) argued that he was entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, as he had applied within three months of attaining majority. It was also contended that he qualified as a person of Indian origin under Article 8 of the Constitution and Section 5(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, due to his grandparents’ birth in undivided India.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The Union of India argued that the respondent’s parents ceased to be Indian citizens in 1998, when they acquired Singaporean citizenship. Therefore, the respondent, born after their renunciation of Indian citizenship, could not claim the right to resume citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Act. Additionally, the Union contended that the respondent did not meet the criteria of being a person of Indian origin under Section 5(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court examined Articles 5 to 9 of the Constitution and Sections 5, 8, and 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. It held that Article 8 applies only to persons residing outside India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935, and does not extend to foreign nationals born after the Constitution’s commencement. The Court further clarified that Section 5(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act applies to individuals born in undivided India or territories that became part of India after August 15, 1947, which did not apply to the respondent, whose parents were born in independent India.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court referenced the case of State of U.P. v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj to emphasize that the language of statutes must be interpreted based on their plain meaning. It also reiterated the principle that citizenship laws must be construed strictly, with no room for equitable interpretations.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court reasoned that Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act applies only to minor children whose parents voluntarily renounced their citizenship, which did not apply to the respondent’s case, as his parents lost Indian citizenship by operation of law under Section 9(1) when they acquired Singaporean citizenship. Therefore, the respondent was ineligible to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2). Furthermore, the respondent did not qualify as a person of Indian origin under Section 5(1)(b) since neither he nor his parents were born in undivided India.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. It dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent but noted that he may still apply for Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act, provided he fulfills the residency requirements, which could be relaxed under special circumstances by the Central Government.
Implications:
This judgment reaffirms that the resumption of Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955, must strictly comply with the statutory provisions. It underscores the limitations of Section 8(2) in granting citizenship to individuals whose parents had ceased to be Indian citizens by operation of law. The ruling also highlights the Court’s cautious approach in using Article 142 powers to confer citizenship.
