Facts Make Case Unique For Consideration: Madras High Court Directs Centre To Take Up Citizenship Plea Of Woman Born In India To Sri Lankan Refugees
The Madras High Court was dealing with a Writ Petition of a woman, seeking a mandamus directing the concerned authorities to consider her representation under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has directed the Centre to take up the Citizenship Application of a woman who was a daughter of Sri Lankan refugees and was born in India.
The Court was dealing with a Writ Petition filed by the said woman, seeking for a mandamus directing the concerned authorities to consider her representation in light of Sections 5 and 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
A Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy said, “She never held a Sri Lankan passport or any document indicating as a citizen of that Country. She held all documents so far upto the age of 37 years as an Indian Citizen. She has married to an Indian. She is the mother of an Indian child, who is a minor aged 9 years needing mother’s affection and care. She is lawfully working in India. There are no other complaints or cases against the petitioner. These facts and circumstances make this case unique for consideration.”
The Bench noted that the Petitioner, under the peculiar fact that her grandparents were citizens of India, was born in India.
Advocate S. Ilamuhil appeared for the Petitioner while Additional Government Pleader (AGP) V. Manoharan and Advocate Rabu Manohar appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
A couple travelled from Sri Lanka to India by air in 1984 and continued to reside here. The Petitioner’s grandfather was from Pudukottai, India and therefore, when the civil war erupted, the couple i.e., her parents chose India as their destination to flee their country. After landing in India, they were granted refugee status and their stay in India was governed by various permits and restrictions that were periodically issued by the authorities of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office in Chennai, and presently, they resided here in India. After the couple arrived in India, the Petitioner was born in 1987 in Coimbatore. Her birth was registered with the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation and she had a birth certificate. Subsequently, she was treated as if she was an Indian citizen. She held all the identity cards typically granted to Indian citizens, including a Voter ID Card. She completed her education and earned her undergraduate degree in Coimbatore.
She was currently working as an Accountant at a private concern. She also married an Indian citizen in 2014 and continued to live in India. She had a son born in 2016 who was studying in Coimbatore. When the Petitioner’s parents approached the appropriate authorities for the renewal of their registration and for an extension of their stay in India, it came to light that the Petitioner had always been treated as an Indian citizen. The authorities noticed that according to the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, any person born in India after July 1, 1987, cannot claim Indian citizenship solely by virtue of birth; at least one of the parents must be a citizen of India at the time of the birth. Therefore, suddenly, realising the mistake, the authorities started taking an action. The passport was ordered to be surrendered and further steps were taken. Hence, the Petitioner submitted an Application for citizenship contending that since her birth occurred five months after the cut-off date, she is still eligible for citizenship under Section 5(i)(c) of the Act. Hence, the matter was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “Regarding the case of the petitioner, while she can be considered a foreigner (which is contested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, arguing that no one can guarantee that Sri Lanka will accept her as a citizen, given that she has no connections, roots, or any documentation pertaining to Sri Lanka), it cannot be said that she entered India without valid documents. She was born in India.”
The Court said that while the authorities can take into account all other parameters required under the Citizenship Act for granting citizenship, the sole requirement for the Petitioner to return to Sri Lanka and re-enter India as a legal migrant need not be considered, because the restriction applies only to illegal migrants.
“Furthermore, considering the definition of an ‘illegal migrant’ under Section 2(1)(b), the petitioner cannot be classified as an illegal migrant, especially, since she is now 37 years old and has always been under the impression that she is an Indian citizen, holding an Indian passport and all relevant documents issued to her”, it added.
The Court, therefore, directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioner’s application for citizenship.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- S. Ramya v. The Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:804)
