In a significant ruling delivered on October 18, 2024, the Supreme Court of India clarified that citizenship of India cannot be conferred on foreign nationals through an expansive or liberal interpretation of the law. The court emphasized that the Citizenship Act, 1955, has clear provisions and that citizenship cannot be granted by “doing violence to the plain language of the Act.” The judgment was delivered by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih in Civil Appeal No. 5932 of 2023 between Union of India and Pranav Srinivasan, who had sought to regain Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) of the Act.
Background of the Case:
The case revolved around the citizenship application of Pranav Srinivasan, who was born in Singapore in 1999 after his parents had voluntarily acquired Singaporean citizenship in 1998. Pranav’s parents were originally Indian citizens but relinquished their citizenship when they became Singaporean citizens. Pranav sought to resume his Indian citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, filing his application in 2017. His plea was rejected by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which determined that he did not meet the necessary conditions under Section 5(1)(b) or Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Pranav challenged this decision before the Madras High Court, where a single judge ruled in his favour. The Division Bench later upheld the judgment, leading the Union of India to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether Pranav was eligible to regain his Indian citizenship under the existing legal framework.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility Under Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955: Pranav argued that he should be entitled to regain Indian citizenship under Section 8(2), which allows minor children of individuals who renounce Indian citizenship to reclaim it upon reaching adulthood.
2. Interpretation of ‘Indian Origin’ Under Section 5(1)(b): Another critical issue was whether Pranav could qualify for citizenship under Section 5(1)(b), which provides for the registration of individuals of Indian origin residing abroad. The central question was whether Pranav’s parents, having been born in post-independence India, could confer ‘Indian origin’ status on him.
3. Liberal vs. Literal Interpretation: The case brought to light the debate over whether the language of the Citizenship Act could be liberally interpreted to accommodate special cases or whether the court was bound by a strict, literal interpretation of the statute.
Decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court overturned the rulings of both the single judge and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, dismissing Pranav’s plea for the resumption of Indian citizenship. The court held that Pranav was not eligible for citizenship under Section 8(2) because his parents had lost their Indian citizenship by operation of law upon acquiring Singaporean citizenship, meaning there was no voluntary renunciation as required under the section.
Furthermore, the court clarified that Pranav did not qualify as a “person of Indian origin” under Section 5(1)(b) because his parents were born in post-independence India and not in the undivided India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935. The court remarked that the legislature’s intent was clear in limiting the scope of “Indian origin” to individuals whose ancestors were born in undivided India.
Key Observations:
1. The court underscored the need to adhere to the plain language of the Citizenship Act. Justice Oka observed:
“The language used in the provisions of the Citizenship Act is plain and simple. Hence, the same should be given its ordinary and natural meaning. Citizenship of India cannot be conferred on foreign citizens by doing violence to the plain language of the Act”.
2. On Pranav’s argument that Article 8 of the Constitution of India should apply, which grants citizenship to people of Indian origin residing abroad, the court rejected the claim. It noted that Article 8 was intended to cover those living outside India at the time of the Constitution’s commencement and was not applicable to cases like Pranav’s.
3. The court also declined to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant citizenship in this case, noting that such extraordinary powers should be used only in exceptional circumstances. Justice Oka stated:
“The power under Article 142 is an extraordinary power which should be exercised to deal with exceptional circumstances. 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”.
Pranav Srinivasan was represented by Senior Counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, who argued that Pranav had filed his application for resumption of Indian citizenship within three months of attaining majority, as required by law. He also contended that Pranav’s grandparents and parents were born in undivided India, which should entitle him to citizenship under Article 8 of the Constitution.
The Union of India was represented by Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, who maintained that Pranav’s parents had lost their Indian citizenship when they voluntarily acquired Singaporean citizenship in 1998, before his birth. Therefore, Pranav was not entitled to Indian citizenship under any provision of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
