Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on October 18, 2024, said that citizenship of India cannot be conferred on foreign citizens by doing violence to the plain language of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal filed by the Union government against the Madras High Court's order, which held that writ petitioner Pranav Srinivasan, born in Singapore to an Indian couple who renounced their citizenship was entitled to resume his citizenship in accordance with Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act.

"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," the Supreme Court said.

The court also pointed out that as the language of Sections 5, 8, and 9 is plain and simple, there is no scope for its liberal interpretation. 

The respondent stated that his paternal grandparents were born in India before independence. His father and mother were born in India in 1963 and 1972, respectively. On December 19, 1998, Pranav’s parents adopted citizenship in Singapore. He was born in Singapore on March 1, 1999, as a citizen of Singapore. 

According to the case of Pranav, on April 20, 2012, his parents renounced their Indian citizenship. On May 5, 2017, when Pranav was eighteen years, two months, and four days old, he submitted an application in Form XXV specified under Rule 24 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009, read with sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 for resumption of his Indian citizenship.

The bench, however, said Section 8(2) would apply only if the minor child's parents had voluntarily renounced citizenship by making a declaration. 

In the facts of the case, on December 19, 1998, when Pranav’s parents voluntarily acquired citizenship 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 on April 20, 2012 by the mode provided under Section 8(1) as they had already ceased to be citizens of India on December 19, 1998 when they voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Singapore. 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. Therefore, Section 8(2) will not assist Pranav," the bench said.

With regard to the applicability of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act, the bench said Pranav can apply for Indian citizenship provided he is an ordinary resident of India for twelve months immediately preceding the date of application.

"There is a power to relax the period of twelve months vested in the Central Government if it is satisfied that special circumstances exist. That is the provision in subsection (1A) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act. We may note here that it is not the case made out that Pranav fulfils the criteria in clause (g) of Section 5(1) of the 1955 Act," the bench said.

The bench thus opined that the view taken by the High Court was completely erroneous as the High Court held that Pranav had resumed Indian citizenship under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 1955 Act.

With regard to arguments that the top court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench said this power is an extraordinary power which should be exercised to deal with exceptional circumstances. 

"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 bench said.

Court while dismissing the writ petition, however, clarified that this judgment will not preclude Pranav from applying for citizenship by invoking clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act. It will also be open for him to apply to the Central Government for the exercise of power under sub-section (1A) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act of relaxation of the period of twelve months provided in clause (f) of sub-section (1) Section 5 of the 1955 Act, it said.

In his arguments, Pranav's counsel submitted that apart from the fact that Pranav was entitled to resume his Indian citizenship by invoking Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act, he is deemed to be an Indian citizen under Article 8 of the Constitution by virtue of his grandparents’ birth in undivided India. 

The court also said Article 8 of the Constitution will have no application to Pranav's case.

"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," the bench said.

The court also held Section 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Act had no application in the case. 

"Section 2(h) of the 1955 Act provides that “undivided India” means India as defined in the 1935 Act. 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. We cannot read something that is not in the provision, especially when there is no ambiguity in the provision. Therefore, we cannot read Explanation 2 the way the senior counsel of Pranav wants us to read," the bench said. 

It said 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, court pointed out. 

Case Title: Union of India Vs Pranav Srinivasan