LexUNION OF INDIA versus PRANAV SRINIVASAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 736 : 2024 INSC 792 Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan (Civil Appeal No. 5932 of 2023) 18 October 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The issue involved in the instant cases concerns the grant of Indian citizenship to the respondent. Headnotes Constitution of India – Arts.5, 6, 7, 8 – Citizenship Act, 1955 – ss.5, 8 – Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Respondent’s grandparents were born in India before independence – His parents were born in India, father in 1963 and mother in 1972 – On 19.12.1998, his parents adopted citizenship of Singapore – Respondent was born on 01.03.1999 in Singapore – On 05.05.2017, respondent sought for resumption of his Indian citizenship, however, he was found ineligible u/s. 5 of the 1955 Act – Writ petition was filed by the respondent before the High Court – High Court held that he was entitled to resume his citizenship in accordance with s.8(2) of the 1955 Act – Correctness: Held: On the face of it, Article 5 of the Constitution will apply to a person who is domiciled in the territory of India on 26.01.1950 – Therefore, this provision will not apply in the present case – Article 6 will have no application as it applies to persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan – 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is ordinarily residing in any country outside India so defined” – So defined means India as defined in the 1935 Act, as originally enacted – Moreover, Article 8 uses the expression “who is ordinarily residing” – Therefore, the provision will only apply to someone ordinarily residing on the date of commencement of the Constitution in any country outside India as defined in the 1935 Act, as originally enacted – Article 8 will not have application on respondent’s case – As far as citizenship * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. 737 Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan Act is concerned, for applicability of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act, respondent will have to establish that he is a person of Indian origin who is an ordinary resident in any country or place outside undivided India – In view of explanation 2 to Section 5, 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 such other territory which was not part of undivided India, but became part of India after 15.08.1947 – Respondent 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 15.08.1947 – Therefore, Section 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Act has no application – In the instant case, it is not in dispute that respondent’s parents acquired Singapore citizenship on 19.12.1998, before his birth when he was in the womb – Therefore, immediately after the voluntary acquisition of Singapore citizenship, respondent’s parents ceased to be citizens of India by the operation of Section 9(1) – Section 8(1) will apply if any citizen of India of full age and capacity makes, in the prescribed manner, a declaration renouncing his Indian Citizenship – There was no occasion for respondent’s parents to renounce their citizenship on 20.04.2012 by the mode provided under Section 8(1) as they had already ceased to be citizens of India on 19.12.1998 when they voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Singapore – As respondent’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 respondent – Therefore, Section 8(2) will not assist respondent – Therefore, the view taken by the High Court was completely erroneous as the High Court held that respondent had resumed Indian citizenship under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 1955 Act – However, respondent not precluded from applying for citizenship by invoking clause (f) of sub-section (1) of s.5 of the 1955 Act. [Paras 16, 18, 19, 20, 23] Case Law Cited State of U.P. v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj [1963] 1 SCR 1 : (1962) 45 ITR 414 : 1962 SCC OnLine SC 12 – relied on. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India [Election Commission Appointments] [2023] 9 SCR 1 : (2023) 6 SCC 161; Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Another. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2023] 1 SCR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.