The Telangana High Court has held that the phrase "was earlier a citizen of independent India" under Section 5(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, encompasses not only former citizens of India but also persons who continue to hold Indian citizenship.

The Court observed that a person who acquired Indian citizenship after Independence and continues to be an Indian citizen would nonetheless fall within the expression "was earlier a citizen of independent India" for the provision.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging a proceeding issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs holding that a Yemeni citizen was ineligible for registration as an Indian citizen under Section 5(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, on the ground that neither he nor either of his parents was an "earlier citizen of independent India."

A Bench of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed: "This Court is of the considered view that the phrase ‘was earlier citizen of independent India’ occurring in Section 5(1)(f) is not confined in its application to persons who were formerly citizens of India and have since ceased to be so. The expression, on a plain and purposive reading, takes within its fold every person who has been a citizen of independent India at any point in time, irrespective of whether such person continues to hold Indian citizenship or not."

Advocate Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood appeared for the petitioners. B. Narsimha Sharma, Additional Solicitor General, appeared for the Union of India.

Background

The second petitioner, a Yemeni citizen by birth, was born outside India to an Indian-citizen mother and a Yemeni father. He was registered as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder and had been residing in India continuously since 2021. He subsequently applied for registration as an Indian citizen under Section 5(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

The District Collector forwarded a favourable report to the Ministry of Home Affairs, finding the applicant eligible and recording no adverse remarks. However, after the application remained pending for nearly three years, the Ministry issued a communication stating that neither the applicant nor either of his parents was an "earlier citizen of independent India" and therefore he was not eligible under Section 5(1)(f) of the Act.

Challenging the communication, the petitioners contended that the Ministry had incorrectly interpreted Section 5(1)(f) by treating the expression "was earlier a citizen of independent India" as referring only to former Indian citizens who had subsequently lost citizenship. They argued that such an interpretation excluded children of current Indian citizens and defeated the purpose of the provision.

The Union of India opposed the petition, contending that the applicant's mother had always remained an Indian citizen and was therefore not a former citizen of India. According to the Ministry, neither the applicant nor either of his parents satisfied the requirement contained in Section 5(1)(f).

Court's Observations

The Court first examined the language of Section 5(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act and held that the Ministry's interpretation was inconsistent with both the text and object of the provision. The Court observed that the word "earlier" refers to the point in time when citizenship was held and does not restrict the provision only to former citizens who have subsequently ceased to be Indian citizens.

The Bench observed: "The word ‘was’ in the phrase ‘was earlier citizen of independent India’ does not mean former citizen to the exclusion of current citizens. The word ‘earlier’ qualifies the point in time when citizenship was held. It means at a point in time since India became independent on 15th August 1947."

The Court further held that a person who presently holds Indian citizenship necessarily was a citizen of independent India at some earlier point in time and therefore falls within the ambit of the provision.

It was observed: "A person who is currently a citizen of India necessarily was a citizen of independent India at the time citizenship was acquired. If that person was born after 15.08.1947, such a person was a citizen of independent India from birth. The phrase encompasses both current citizens and former citizens."

The Court found that the Ministry's interpretation would lead to irrational and anomalous consequences. According to the Court, accepting the Ministry's interpretation would mean that the child of a former Indian citizen who had renounced citizenship would be eligible under Section 5(1)(f), while the child of a person who continued to remain an Indian citizen would not be eligible.

The Court observed: "If only former citizens are covered, then a child of a person who renounced Indian citizenship would be eligible, but a child of a current Indian citizen would not be eligible. This would mean that a child of a former citizen would have greater rights than a child of a current citizen. Such a result cannot be the legislative intent."

The Bench further noted that acceptance of the Ministry's interpretation would produce manifestly unreasonable results by compelling an Indian citizen to renounce citizenship merely to make a child eligible to apply for Indian citizenship.

The Court held: "Moreover, accepting the interpretation of Respondent No.1 would compel an Indian citizen to renounce citizenship so that their child becomes eligible to apply for citizenship. No law can be interpreted to produce such an unreasonable result."

The Court also emphasised that Section 5(1)(f) is a beneficial provision intended to facilitate the acquisition of citizenship by persons having a familial connection with India. It observed: "A provision such as Section 5(1)(f) of the Act, which enables persons having a familial connection with India to acquire citizenship, must receive a construction that furthers its object."

Rejecting the preliminary objection that the writ petition was premature, the Court held that the impugned communication was not merely a tentative or internal correspondence but contained a definitive finding on the applicant's ineligibility. The Court observed: "The proceeding creates adverse civil consequences for Petitioner No.2. It affects his rights."

Relying upon Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 SCC 481 and K. Praveen Kumar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court held that where an authority has already formed a concluded view on eligibility, judicial review cannot be denied merely because the proceeding is described as a deficiency letter or preliminary communication.

The Court then examined the applicant's eligibility and found that the statutory conditions under Section 5(1)(f) had been satisfied. The applicant was of full age and capacity, was not an illegal migrant, had completed the prescribed period of residence in India and had furnished the necessary undertaking and oath of allegiance. The Court also noted the favourable recommendation submitted by the District Collector.

Additionally, the Court observed that the materials on record indicated that the applicant also satisfied the requirements of Section 5(1)(g) relating to OCI cardholders. The Court held: "When the authorities were in possession of all material necessary to examine the eligibility of the applicant under all applicable provisions, the application ought to have been considered under every provision to which the applicant was entitled."

The Bench further observed: "The authorities cannot decline to consider eligibility under one provision merely because the applicant cited a different provision in the application form."

Accordingly, the Court concluded: “… this Court is satisfied that Petitioner No.2 has fulfilled all the eligibility conditions prescribed under Section 5(1)(f) as well as Section 5(1)(g) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and Rule 8 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and therefore, entitled to issuance of a Mandamus. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the power to grant citizenship vests with the Central Government and this Court ought not to substitute its decision for that of the competent authority.”

Conclusion

Allowing the writ petition, the Telangana High Court set aside the impugned proceeding issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and directed fresh consideration of the citizenship application.

The Court held that the applicant's mother, being an Indian citizen by birth after Independence, satisfied the requirement contained in Section 5(1)(f), and further directed the Ministry to consider the applicant's eligibility under all applicable provisions of Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, including Section 5(1)(g), and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Cause Title: Munna Mohammed Ghouse & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: