Act can’t be interpreted liberally to grant citizenship: SC

Cautioning against liberal interpretation of provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the Supreme Court has ruled that Citizenship of India cannot be conferred on foreign citizens by doing violence to the plain language of the 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,” a Bench of Justice AS Oka said in its October 18 verdict.

“As the language of Sections 5 (citizenship by registration), 8 (renunciation of citizenship) and 9 (termination of citizenship) is plain and simple, there is no scope for its liberal interpretation. Citizenship of India cannot be conferred on foreign citizens by doing violence to the plain language of the 1955 Act,” said the Bench which also included Justice AG Masih.

The top court set aside a May 2022 order of the Madras High Court which said even if parents of a person renounce their Indian citizenship, their unborn child would be entitled to claim Indian citizenship.

Acting on a petition filed by one Pranav Srinivasan challenging a 2019 Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) order denying him Indian citizenship, the high court had allowed his plea for Indian citizenship.

To start with, Pranav’s parents were Indian citizens who went on to acquire Singapore’s citizenship in December 1998. While the process for acquiring Singapore’s citizenship for the couple was on, Pranav’s mother was pregnant and on birth he became a Singapore citizen.

However, after attaining majority, Pranav invoked Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act seeking 'resumption' of his Indian citizenship but the MHA concluded that he was not eligible for ‘resumption’ of Indian citizenship. On his petition against the MHA’s decision, the high court had ruled that he was entitled to resume his Indian citizenship. The MHA moved the top court against the high court’s decision.

Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan had contended on behalf of Pranav that within three months of attaining majority in May 2017, the petitioner had declared his intention to resume Indian citizenship by filing the application in Form XXV with the Consulate Office (Consulate General of India, New York, USA). He was entitled to resume his Indian citizenship by invoking Section 8(2) of the Act and that he was deemed to be an Indian citizen under Article 8 of the Constitution by virtue of his grandparents’ birth in undivided India.

However, the top court said, “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 grounds 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.”