In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court bench at Goa, comprising Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes, has clarified that the acquisition of foreign citizenship by a parent does not impact the Indian citizenship of their minor child. Emphasising that a child cannot be left stateless, the Court held that the minor petitioner was entitled to a passport based on her Indian citizenship.

The case involved a 16-year-old minor girl who challenged the decision of the High Commission of India, Passport & Consular Wing, United Kingdom (referred to as ‘Respondent No. 2’). The minor sought to quash respondent 2’s Order that declared her ineligible for an Indian passport because her mother, a foreign national, was her single parent. The bench ruled in favour of the minor, affirming that her mother’s foreign citizenship did not strip her of Indian citizenship.

Born in Goa in 2007, the minor’s parents were Indian citizens at the time of her birth and marriage. After her parents’ divorce in 2010, her mother was granted physical custody. The minor received an Indian passport in 2014, valid until 2019, and was also issued an Aadhaar Card. In the meantime, her mother applied for Portuguese citizenship, which was granted in 2015.

The minor, now residing in the UK with her mother, was issued a UK residence card in 2017 and later granted ‘Indefinite Leave to Remain’ status in 2021. However, when the minor applied for the renewal of her Indian passport in 2019, Respondent No. 2 denied her application, claiming she was no longer eligible.

The Court referred to the case of Lourdes Jennifer Lobo v. Regional Passport Officer, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 322, and analysed the relevant provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and Passports Act, 1967. The judges took into account the minor’s Indian birth and her lack of foreign citizenship, confirming her status as a citizen of India by birth under Section 3 of the Citizenship Act.

The main question of law was whether the minor's custody by her mother, who had acquired foreign citizenship, could affect her Indian citizenship. Upon reviewing Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Citizenship Act, the Court noted that although the mother had ceased to be an Indian citizen by acquiring Portuguese citizenship, this did not automatically impact the minor’s citizenship status. There was no indication that the minor had acquired any other nationality.

The Court examined several Supreme Court decisions, including State of A.P. v. Abdul Khader, 1962 SCR (1) 737, Akbar Khan Alam Khan v. Union of India, 1962 SCR (1) 779, and State of U.P. v. Shah Mohd., AIR 1969 SC 1234, to interpret the legal provisions governing citizenship and its implications on the present matter. Based on these precedents, the Court held that the minor remained an Indian citizen, regardless of her mother’s foreign citizenship.

The Court also considered an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (PSP Division), which discussed the effects of parents renouncing Indian citizenship on their minor children. The Memorandum explicitly stated that Section 9 of the Citizenship Act does not provide for the termination of citizenship of minors, even if one parent has acquired foreign citizenship. In cases where one parent renounces Indian citizenship but the other retains it, the child’s citizenship follows the parent with custody, as long as one parent remains an Indian citizen. The Court found that this Memorandum supported the petitioner’s case, further strengthening the argument that the minor’s Indian citizenship was intact.

The Bombay High Court set aside the decision of Respondent No. 2, directing that the minor be issued a passport on the basis of her Indian citizenship. The ruling reaffirmed that the acquisition of foreign citizenship by a parent does not automatically affect the citizenship of their minor child. The Court’s decision ensures that minors in such situations are not left stateless, protecting their right to retain Indian citizenship.

Case Citation: Chrisella Valanka Kushi Raj Naidu v. Ministry of External Affairs, WP/135/2024

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijeet Kamat

Advocate for the Respondents: Raviraj Chodankar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India

(For more updates, tap to join our WhatsApp Channel and our LinkedIn Page)