AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders of the 1st Respondent in Letter No.
26013/173/2005 ICII dt.25.04.2006 and direct the 1st Respondent to grant Indian Citizenship in favour of the Petitioner u/s 5(1) of the
Citizenship Act, 1955.
The Petitioner Mukesh Kumar Ravin, a Singapore National has submitted the Citizenship Application along with 11 supportive relevant
documents in triplicate for grant of Indian Citizenship u/s 5(1)(a) of the said Act on 15.05.2002. Petitioner''s application was accepted by the
office of the Collector, Chennai on 15.05.2002. Petitioner''s application has been forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-8
by Collector, Chennai in file No. P2/26439/2002 dated 01.08.2002 for enquiry and report.
Collector of Chennai, has forwarded the Citizenship application of the Petitioner with relevant documents to the State Government on
16.12.2003. The Government has called for details of visits in abroad and reasons for not extending Petitioner''s Residential permit beyond
20.06.2002 and not renewing the Singapore passport beyond 31.01.2003. Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 02.02.2006, and the same
has been forwarded to the State Government on 13.02.2006 and the same has been forwarded to the Central Government. The 1st Respondent
by the impugned letter No. 26013/173/05/IC.II, dated 25.04.2006, has informed that the Petitioner''s request for grant of Indian Citizenship u/s
5(1)(a) of the Act cannot be considered which is the subject matter in this writ petition.
2nd Respondent-Government of Tamil Nadu filed counter contending that the Government have duly forwarded the application with relevant
documents to the 1st Respondent, the State Government acted in accordance with rules. It is further averred that to obtain Indian Citizenship under
s. 5(1)(a) of Citizenship Act, the Petitioner has to produce the renewed Residential permit and therefore direction of Ministry of India to the State
Government is in accordance with the Act and the Rules and there is no merit in the writ petition.
Drawing Court''s attention to typed set of papers, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. C.S. Prakas Rao, contended that Petitioner''s father is
Indian National by descent and therefore u/s 4(1) of the Act Petitioner is entitled for Citizenship. Drawing court''s attention to letter dated
28.03.2006, from the Government of Tamil Nadu to the Ministry of India the learned Counsel contended that State Government mistakenly stated
the Petitioner as ""Srilankan National"" which seems to have substantially weighed with the Central Government to reject the Petitioner''s request for
grant of Citizenship. Learned Counsel further contended that there is non application of mind by the Respondents and suitable direction has to be
issued to the Respondents for grant of Citizenship to the Petitioner.
Onbehalf of the 2nd Respondent, the learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. N. Senthilkumar has submitted that since the Petitioner has
not renewed Residential permit his Citizenship u/s 5(1)(a) was not considered. It was further argued that the Petitioner has submitted his
application at the last moment i.e. one month before the expiry of his Residential permit and therefore the Respondents cannot be faulted for not
granting Citizenship to the Petitioner.
Petitioner was born in 1982, in Singapore. His father Mukesh Kumar is a citizen of India by birth and till date Petitioner''s father is a citizen of
India. Petitioner''s mother was born in Singapore and the Petitioner was also born in Singapore. Though Petitioner was Singapore National,
petitioner was educated at Madras and he studied B.Com in Loyola College, Chennai. Petitioner applied to the Collector of Chennai for
registration as an Indian Citizen u/s 5 of the Citizenship Act. At that relevant time Petitioner had valid Residential permit upto 30.02.2002 and valid
Singapore passport upto January 2003. After verifying the records, by letter dated 02.05.2005, 2nd Respondent forwarded the Petitioner''s
application to the Government of India u/s 5(1) of the Act. Thereafter, Central Government called for certain particulars and again the Petitioner''s
application was forwarded by the State Government in which it was wrongly stated that the Petitioner was a Srilankan National. By the impugned
letter dated 25.04.2006, Central Government declined Petitioner''s request for the grant of Indian Citizenship u/s 5(1) of the Act.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is entitled to Citizenship by descent u/s 4(1) of the Act and while so the
Respondents are not justified in declining to grant Citizenship to the Petitioner. Main contention of Petitioner is that his father being Indian Citizen
Petitioner is entitled to become Indian Citizen u/s 4(1) of the Act.
Petitioner has also surrendered his Singapore passport and have also not extended his Residential permit. On behalf of the Petitioner it was
mainly contended that the Petitioner is entitled to Citizenship by descent u/s 4(1) of the Act. 4(1) of the Act reads as follows:
Citizenship by descent: (1) A person born outside India shall be a citizen of India by descent,
(a) on or after the 26th day of January, 1950, but before the 10th day of December,1992, if his father is a citizen of India at the time of his birth; or
(b) on or after the 10th day of December,1992, if either of his parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth:
u/s 4(1) to become Citizenship by descent, as per Proviso to Section 4(1) the following conditions are to be satisfied. The Proviso to Section
4(1) reads as under:
Provided that if the father of a person referred to in Clause (a) was a citizen of India by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of India by
virtue of this section unless-
(a) his birth is registered at an Indian consulate within one year of its occurrence or the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, or, with the
permission of the Central Government, after the expiry of said period; or
(b) his father is, at the time of his birth, in service under a Government in India;
By combined reading of Section 4(1) along with Proviso, it is clear that a person born outside India shall be a Citizen of India by descent only
if his birth is registered at an Indian Consulate as stipulated under the Proviso. Petitioner''s father was a Indian by birth.
Onbehalf of Petitioner it was mainly contended that Petitioner being child of Indian Citizen born in Singapore would be a Citizen of India by
descent. As per proviso a person born outside India would become Indian Citizen by descent only, if his birth was registered at the Indian
Consulate as stipulated in the Proviso. It is not the case of Petitioner that his birth was registered at Indian Consulate within one year of his birth or
the commencement of the Act.
As such the Petitioner has rightly applied for Citizenship by registering u/s 5 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act reads as under:
Citizenship by registration.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and such other conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, the
Central Government may, on an application made in this behalf, register as a citizen of India any person not being an illegal migrant who is not
already such citizen by virtue of the Constitution or of any other provision of this Act if he belongs to any of the following categories, namely:
(a) a person of India origin who is ordinarily resident in India for seven years before making an application for registration;
(f) a person of full age and capacity who, or either of his parents, was earlier citizen of independent India, and has been residing in India for one
year immediately before making an application for registration.
Petitioner''s father being Indian National, petitioner can only claim Citizenship by registration as contemplated u/s 5(1)(f) of the Act.
Petitioner was born to an Indian Citizen in Singapore and the Petitioner acquired Singapore Citizenship because he was born there. However,
the Petitioner had undergone his education in India, settled in India and had applied for Indian Citizenship. Infact the Petitioner had also
surrendered his Singapore passport. Having regard to the facts and circumstance, Government of Tamil Nadu had forwarded Petitioner''s
application by the letter No. 579 dated 11.07.2005 to the Central Government stating that State Government has no objection to the Petitioner
being registered as Indian Citizen u/s 5(1)(a) of the Act.
In response to the State Government letter, the 1st Respondent had called for further details about the Petitioner visits abroad, return visas or
exit visas. The Petitioner had resubmitted his application along with called for particulars. In his letter dated 02.02.2006, petitioner has clearly
stated that in order to become Citizen of India u/s 4(1) of the Act, he has renounced his Singapore passport by not extending the validity beyond
31.01.2003. For the same reason Petitioner has also not extended his Residential permit beyond 20.05.2002.
While forwarding the application of Petitioner (dated 02.02.2006), the State Government in its letter No. 106374/Citz.I/2005-2 dated
28.03.2006, has mistakenly stated that Petitioner is a Srilankan National and that the Petitioner had given his details of visits to abroad. That
inadvertent mistake in the said letter seems to have substantially weighed with the Central Government for declining Citizenship to the Petitioner.
Infact the Central Government had also not sought for any clarification regarding inadvertent mistake crept in the said letter. The reasons stated by
the 1st Respondent for not considering the request of the Petitioner is not convincing.
As pointed out earlier in the letter dated 11.07.2005, State Government recommended the case of the Petitioner stating that State Government
have no objection to the Petitioner being registered as Indian Citizen u/s 5(1)(a) of the Act. While so the 1st Respondent was not justified in
rejecting the request of the Petitioner for grant of Citizenship.
In the result the impugned letter No. 26013/173/05/IC.II dated 25.04.2006, is quashed and this writ petition is allowed. The 1st Respondent
is directed to consider the case of the Petitioner and grant Citizenship u/s 5(1)(a) and (f) of the Citizenship Act. The 1st Respondent shall pass
appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the application.