In Union of India vs. Pranav Srinivasan, the Supreme Court clarifies the meaning of "person of Indian origin" and limits the use of Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 for regaining Indian citizenship.

The Supreme Court of India, in Union of India vs. Pranav Srinivasan, allowed the appeal of the Union of India, setting aside the High Court of Madras's decision to grant Pranav Srinivasan Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (the 1955 Act). The court has meticulously examined the provisions of the Citizenship Act 1955, clarifyied the interpretation of "person of Indian origin" and the applicability of various clauses related to citizenship acquisition.

Background of the Case:
Pranav Srinivasan's paternal grandparents were born in India before independence and his parents were also born in India, in 1963 and 1972, respectively. When Pranav's parents adopted Singaporean citizenship in 1998 and renounced their Indian citizenship in 2012, Pranav was born in Singapore in 1999 as a Singaporean citizen.

In 2017, at 18 years old, Pranav applied for resumption of Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act. After initial procedural delays, Pranav's application was rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which advised him to reapply under different sections of the 1955 Act. Pranav challenged this decision in the Madras High Court and succeeded before a single judge, who ruled he was entitled to resume his citizenship under Section 8(2). and the Union of India appealed to a Division Bench of the High Court, but the appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India and the 1955 Act., and determined that Article 8 of the Constitution, pertaining to citizenship rights of certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India, did not apply to Pranav because it was intended to apply to individuals residing outside India at the commencement of the Constitution, not those born after.

The Apex Court also rejected the applicability of Section 5(1)(b) of the 1955 Act, which deals with citizenship by registration for persons of Indian origin residing outside undivided India. The Court clarified that "undivided India" refers to an INDIA which is defined in the Government of India Act, 1935, however, Pranav's parents were born in independent India, not undivided India. It further held that Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act, allowing minor children to resume Indian citizenship if their parents renounced it, did not apply to Pranav because his parents' Indian citizenship automatically terminated upon acquiring Singaporean citizenship under Section 9(1), not through voluntary renunciation.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of interpreting the provisions related to citizenship literally, given their significant implications. While dismissing Pranav's claim under the invoked sections, the Supreme Court acknowledged that he could still apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f) of the 1955 Act, which pertains to individuals whose parents were earlier citizens of independent India, subject to residency requirements, or seek relaxation of the residency requirements under Section 5(1A).

Question:

Whether Article 8 of the Constitution of India applies to individuals born after the commencement of the Constitution?

The Apex Court ruled that Article 8 of the Constitution does not apply to individuals born after January 26, 1950 (the date when the Constitution came into force). The Court reasoned that this article of the constitution specifically uses the present tense phrase "who is ordinarily residing," indicating that it was intended to apply only to individuals residing outside of India when the Constitution was adopted. If Article 8 were to apply to all individuals born after 1950, the Court argued, then individuals born much later whose parents or grandparents were born in areas that used to be part of India (like modern-day Pakistan and Bangladesh) could claim citizenship — a situation the Court considered absurd and unintended by the Constitution’s framers.

Whether the term "undivided India" in the Citizenship Act, 1955, encompasses independent India?

The Court clearly stated that "undivided India," as used in the 1955 Act, does not include the territory of India after it gained independence. The Court reached this conclusion based on the Act's own definition of the term and the structure of Section 5's Explanation 2. The Act explicitly defines "undivided India" as "India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935". Explanation 2 to Section 5 creates two categories of people considered to be of Indian origin: those born in undivided India, and those born in territories that became part of India after August 15, 1947. The Court reasoned that if "undivided India" included independent India, the second category would be unnecessary, as it would be encompassed by the first.

Whether Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act applies when parents' citizenship is terminated by operation of law rather than voluntary renunciation?

Section 8(2) of the 1955 Act enables minor children to potentially reclaim Indian citizenship if their parents voluntarily renounced their Indian citizenship. However, this provision only applies when parents relinquish their citizenship through a formal declaration under Section 8(1). In Pranav Srinivasan’s case, his parents automatically lost their Indian citizenship when they voluntarily acquired Singaporean citizenship, as stipulated by Section 9(1) of the 1955 Act. This automatic loss of citizenship is not considered voluntary renunciation under the law; therefore, Section 8(2) did not apply to Pranav.

Conclusion
Supreme Court of India provided a clear and decisive interpretation of India’s citizenship laws. The Court emphasized a strict, literal interpretation of the relevant provisions in the Constitution and the 1955 Act, underscoring that the acquisition of Indian citizenship is a matter of significant legal consequence. While Pranav Srinivasan's claim for citizenship was denied in this specific instance, the judgment clarified that he could still explore other pathways to acquire Indian citizenship, such as applying under Section 5(1)(f) of the 1955 Act, which pertains to individuals whose parents were previously Indian citizens and observed that "22. Now, only clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1955 Act survives for consideration. However, under the said provision, Pranav can apply for Indian citizenship provided he is an ordinary resident of India for twelve months immediately preceding the date of application."

Coram: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Between: Union of India vs. Pranav Srinivasan.
DOJ:18-10-2024