Can a child born in India to parents who were Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholders at the time of birth be regarded as a “Person of Indian Origin” for the purpose of acquiring Indian citizenship? The Supreme Court of India is examining this petition to decide an important constitutional and statutory question of serious legal and human consequences.

A two-judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan recently issued notice on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Rachita Francis Xavier, challenging the Delhi High Court’s judgment that had set aside an earlier single-judge ruling in her favour.

Background:

Ms. Rachita Francis Xavier who is 18 years old, was born and brought up in Andhra Pradesh to parents of Indian origin who had earlier renounced Indian citizenship and obtained United States citizenship. At the time of her birth in 2006, both parents were residing in India as OCI cardholders, a status that grants lifelong visa and certain benefits but does not confer Indian citizenship.

When Rachita applied for an Indian passport in 2019 to pursue higher studies abroad, her application was denied on the ground that, under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (as amended), she did not qualify as an Indian citizen by birth or descent since neither parent was an Indian citizen at her birth. Frustrated by her statelessness as she was neither recognized as an Indian citizen nor was she in possession of valid travel documents of another state, she filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the passport denial and the Office Memorandum dated 25 October 2018 relied upon by the government.

High Court's Analysis And Ruling :

In May 2024, a Single Judge bench of the Delhi High Court ruled in Rachita’s favour, concluding that she was neither an “illegal migrant” nor unqualified to seek citizenship. The court observed that she could be regarded as a “Person of Indian Origin” under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act because her mother was born in India, and she had lived in India all her life.

However, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in July 2025 disagreed with this interpretation and set aside the conclusions that Rachita qualified as a Person of Indian Origin. The Bench held that the single judge’s reading of the statutory provisions, particularly Explanation 2 to Section 5(1)(g) of the Citizenship Act, was incorrect. This provision defines “Person of Indian Origin” in terms of birth in undivided India before 15 August 1947, or in a territory that became part of India after that date. Since Rachita’s mother was born in independent India post-1947, the High Court held she could not be classified as a Person of Indian Origin under that definition.

Supreme Court's Observation:

In the Supreme Court’s recent order of January 8, 2026, the Bench acknowledged procedural and substantive issues in how the High Court framed its judgment. Notably, the Court recorded the High Court’s observation:

“… the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs no. 41 and 52 that the respondent qualified to be a person of ‘Indian Origin’ is erroneous… and accordingly… we set aside the observations made… whereby it has been held that the respondent would be a person of ‘Indian Origin’.”

The Supreme Court also condoned the delay in filing the SLP and agreed to hear arguments on whether the question of “Person of Indian Origin” was essential to the controversy, or whether it was unnecessarily introduced by the High Court.

The apex court’s reasoning in their order of January 8, 2026, reflects that the issues will include whether the statutory categories allowing citizenship by registration (such as Section 5(1)(f)) or the Central Government’s discretion under Section 5(4) to grant citizenship in special circumstances are relevant to Rachita’s case.

Finally, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be listed for further hearing on January 30, 2026.

Case details- RACHITA FRANCIS XAVIER v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.|SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.61432/2025