This article has been written by Manu Sharma, 9th semester of law from Amity University Raipur.
UNION OF INDIA (Appellant(s))
VERSUS
PRANAV SRINIVASAN (Respondent(s))
- Citation: 2024 Live Law (SC) 816
- Date of judgement -18 October 2024
- Hon’ble judge: Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
INTRODUCTION
On October 18, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals cannot be granted Indian citizenship by violating the Citizenship Act, 1955’s plain wording.
The Union government filed an appeal against the Madras High Court’s ruling that writ petitioner Pranav Srinivasan, who was born in Singapore to an Indian couple who had renounced their citizenship, was entitled to regain his citizenship under Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act. The appeal was granted by a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih.
FACTS
To understand the factual and legal dispute, it is important to put forward some factual aspects. So, facts of the case is that respondents (Pranav’s) grandparents were born in India before independence and they were citizen too. Pranav’s father born in year 1963 and mother born in 1973 in India only. Further Pranav’s parents acquired Singapore citizenship on 19th december1998, on next year that is on 1999 Pranav born as citizen of Singapore. As per these case parents of the respondent refuse their citizenship of India. On 20th April 2012 Pranav applied for the resumption of his Indian citizenship on May 5, 2017, when he was eighteen years, two months, and four days old. He did this using Form XXV, which is required by Rule 24 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009, read with sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (also known as “the 1955 Act”).
ISSUES
The form XXV used by Pranav was not considered because of which the issue raised which was relates to the awarding of Indian citizenship to Pranav Srinivasan, who is the petitioner in the writ petition and the respondent in the civil appeal.
ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER (in civil appeal)
The learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of the Union of India, Mr. K M Nataraj, argued that Articles 5 through 9 of the Indian Constitution allow anyone who is eligible to obtain citizenship at the outset of the document to do so. But when a person who has freely obtained citizenship in any foreign state is prohibited from obtaining citizenship under Articles 5, 6, or 8 by Article 9.
Additionally, he brought Articles 10 and 11 to our attention. He argued that Article 10 states that, subject to the requirements of any laws passed by Parliament, anyone who is or is presumed to be an Indian citizen under Part II of the Constitution of India should remain an Indian citizen. The Parliament’s authority to enact laws pertaining to the acquisition and revocation of citizenship is safeguarded under Article 11.
He further argued that the 1955 Act’s Section 8(2) would not be applicable. He argued that as soon as Pranav’s parents obtained Singaporean citizenship, they forfeited their citizenship. Pranav’s parents were no longer Indian nationals at the time of his birth. After obtaining Singaporean citizenship, they forfeited their Indian citizenship. Thus, he would argue that Pranav has no claim to Indian citizenship.
ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENT(in civil appeal)
The learned senior counsel representing Pranav, Mr. C S Vaidyanathan, argued that on May 5, 2017, three months after reaching majority, Pranav announced his intention to regain Indian citizenship by submitting an application in Form XXV to the Consulate Office Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2023, etc. he argued that Pranav is considered an Indian citizen under Article 8 of the Indian Constitution because his ancestors were born in undivided India, in addition to the fact that he was able to regain his Indian citizenship by using Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act. Moreover, Section 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Act gave him the right to apply for Indian citizenship.
The learned senior counsel claimed that it is obvious from the wording of Section 5 of the 1955 Act that a person can obtain Indian citizenship through the 1955 Act or through constitutional requirements. One separate and independent source of citizenship is Article 8.
The learned senior counsel argued that Pranav has the right to be registered as an Indian citizen under clause, regardless of the constitutional requirements. (b) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act, sub-section (1). He argued that if it can be demonstrated that the parents were born in India after its independence and the grandparents were born in undivided India, an individual of Indian descent may obtain Indian citizenship.
COURTS REASONING
Regardless of what is stated in Article 5, someone who was born in India, as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted), or whose parents or grandparents were born in India, and who currently resides in a country outside of India, as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935, will be considered an Indian citizen if he has been registered as such by the Indian diplomatic or consular representative in the country where he is currently residing, upon his application to such a representative, whether before or after the start of this Constitution, in the format and manner specified by the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of India. But No one who has willingly obtained citizenship in any foreign state shall be considered an Indian citizen under Article 5 or be considered an Indian citizen under Articles 6 or 8.
Another point focused by court is thar the Subject to the requirements of any legislation that may be passed by Parliament, everyone who is or is presumed to be an Indian citizen under any of the provisions of this Part will remain an Indian citizen. But Nothing in this Part’s provisions will take away Parliament’s authority to enact laws pertaining to obtaining and losing citizenship as well as all other citizenship-related issues. On its face, a person who is domiciled in India on January 26, 1950, will be covered by Article 5.
Before or after the Constitution’s implementation, anyone who meets the requirements of Article 8’s first half may apply to India’s diplomatic or consular representative in any nation where they currently reside. He does not have to apply to the Indian diplomatic or consular representative in the nation where he was living at the time of the Constitution (Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2023, etc. Page 13 of 25).
There were certain arguments in Favor of this Court using its extraordinary jurisdiction as granted by Article 142 of the Indian Constitution. Article 142 grants extraordinary authority that ought to be used to address extraordinary situations. In courts opinion, this instance does not justify the use of authority granted by Article 142 of the Indian Constitution. When it comes to using its authority under Article 142 to grant a foreign national Indian citizenship, this Court will need to take extreme caution.
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
As part of Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2023, it was argued that Pranav’s grandparents were born in the State of Tamil Nadu. undivided India before to August 15, 1947 (page 4 of 25). Prior to independence, his maternal grandparents were also born in an undivided India. Pranav was therefore eligible to get Indian citizenship under Article 8. It is argued that the Union of India is acting arbitrarily when it fails to recognize and uphold a constitutional provision.
“The learned senior counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India [Election Commission Appointments]1 in the context of the right to vote. He also relied upon another decision in the case of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Another. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.2, wherein this Court held that the role of the constitutional Courts is to interpret the Constitution, considering the changing needs of the society.”[1]
As it is mentioned under explanation 2 of section 5 that:
“(2) No person being of full age shall be registered as a citizen of India under sub-section (1) until he has taken the oath of allegiance in the form specified in the Second Schedule.
(3) No person who has renounced, or has been deprived of, his Indian citizenship or whose (Indian Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2023, etc. Page 17 of 25) citizenship has terminated, under this Act shall be registered as a citizen of India under sub-section (1) except by order of the Central Government.
(4) The Central Government may, if satisfied that there are special circumstances justifying such registration, cause any minor to be registered as a citizen of India”.[2]
In the case of State of U.P. v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj[3], this Court held thus
“The fundamental and elementary rule of construction is that the words and phrases used by the legislature shall be given their ordinary meaning and shall be construed according to the rules of grammar. When a language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, no question of construction of a statute arises, for the Act speaks for itself.”.[4]
Consequently, the High Court’s conclusion that Pranav had regained Indian citizenship in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 1955 Act was wholly incorrect.
JUDGEMENT
The Union government filed an appeal against the Madras High Court’s ruling that writ petitioner Pranav Srinivasan, who was born in Singapore to an Indian couple who had renounced their citizenship, was entitled to regain his citizenship under Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act. The appeal was granted by a bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih.
As a result, the bench believed that the High Court’s conclusion—that Pranav had regained Indian citizenship in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 1955 Act—was wholly incorrect.
The court further declared that Pranav’s case would not be covered by Article 8 of the Constitution. Additionally, the court determined that Section 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Act did not apply in this case.
ANALYSIS OF THE LAW
He argued that a child in the womb or an unborn child would be considered a “minor child” under Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act. He argued that whereas Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act addresses a small child, Section 3 of the Act discusses obtaining citizenship by birth. Accordingly, a child may apply for resumption of Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act without having to be born in India.
Part II of the Constitution deals with ‘Citizenship’. It consists of Articles 5 to 11, which read thus:
- Either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or
- He or either of his parents or any of his grandparents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted); and
Therefore, this provision will not apply in the present case.
“Citizenship” is covered in Part II of the Constitution. Articles 5 through 11 of the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted) state that either of his parents was born in India, or that he, either of his parents, or any of his grandparents was born in India. As a result, this clause will not be applicable in this case.
Let’s now examine Article 8. It pertains to an individual:
- whose parents were born in India as defined by the 1935 Act as originally enacted.
- whose grandparents were born in India as defined by the 1935 Act as originally enacted: or Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2023, etc. Page 12 of 25
- whose parents were born in India as defined by the 1935 Act as originally enacted.
Article 8 would not be referring to “who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India so defined” if it were meant to apply to foreign nationals born after the Constitution’s adoption. “So defined” refers to India as it was originally established in the 1935 Act. Furthermore, the phrase “who is ordinarily residing” is used in Article 8. As a result, the clause will only apply to those who are typically residing in any nation outside of India as specified by the 1935 Act on the date the Constitution goes into effect. Thus, Pranav’s case will not be covered by Article 8.
According to Article 10, every person who is considered an Indian citizen under the terms of Articles 5 through 8 would remain so, subject to the provisions of any laws passed by Parliament. Article 11 safeguards the Parliament’s authority to enact laws pertaining to the granting and revocation of citizenship as well as all other citizenship-related issues.
Any Indian citizen of legal age and capacity who renounces his Indian citizenship in the way specified will be subject to Section 8(1). The involuntary termination of citizenship by operation of law, as specified in Section 9(1), will not be covered by Section 8(1). Only if the parents of the minor child have willingly resigned their citizenship by filing a declaration would Section 8(2) be applicable. According to the case’s circumstances, Pranav’s parents immediately lost their Indian citizenship on December 19, 1998, when they willingly became citizens of Singapore, in accordance with Section 9(1). Pranav’s parents had already ceased to be Indian citizens on December 19, 1998, when they voluntarily obtained Singaporean citizenship, thus there was no reason for them to renounce their citizenship on April 20, 2012, in accordance with Section 8(1). Pranav is exempt from Section 8(2) since his parents lost their Indian citizenship—not voluntarily—due to the implementation of Section 9(1). Consequently, Pranav will not benefit from Section 8(2).
It is a widely accepted rule of construction that the legislature’s stated aim must be used to gather meaning. (Addition of emphasis) The 1955 Act’s requirements are written in straightforward language. Therefore, it should be given a natural and everyday meaning. Furthermore, we are discussing a law that allows foreign nationals to be granted Indian citizenship. When reading such a statute, there is no room for equitable considerations. There is no room for a broad reading of Sections 5, 8, and 9 because their language is straightforward. Foreign nationals cannot be granted Indian citizenship by violating the 1955 Act’s plain text.
The only remaining clause for consideration is clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act. Pranav may, however, apply for Indian citizenship under the aforementioned clause if he has been a regular resident of India for the 12 months prior to the application date.
CONCLUSION
He lived in India for the whole twelve months prior to applying for registration; and (ii) He has lived in India for a minimum of six years during the eight years that precede the twelve-month period.
The contested orders in Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2023 are thus overturned. An appeal is permitted. The 2024 Writ Petition (C) No.123 is denied. But this ruling won’t stop Pranav from using clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2023, etc. Page 24 of 25 ~ Section 5 of the 1955 Act to apply for citizenship. He shall also have the option to request from the Central Government the exercise of authority granted by sub-section (1A) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act to extend the twelve-month period specified in clause (f) of sub-section (1) of the same Act.
[1] Union Of India vs Pranav Srinivasan on 18 October 2024 indiankanoon.com
[2] Section 5 of the citizenship Act, 1955
[3] State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj on 26 March, 1962
[4] (1962) 45 ITR 414 : 1962 SCC OnLine SC 12 Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2023, etc. Page 22 of 25
