Introduction:

In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court bench at Goa upheld the principle that a child’s Indian citizenship cannot be denied based on the nationality of their single foreign parent. Justices Makarand Karnik and Valmiki SA Menezes delivered this ruling in response to a petition filed by Chrisella Valanka Kushi Raj Naidu, a minor challenging the Indian High Commission in the UK’s decision to refuse renewing her Indian passport. Despite her mother’s renunciation of Indian citizenship and acquisition of Portuguese citizenship, the court affirmed that the petitioner retained her Indian citizenship by virtue of her birth in India and was thus entitled to an Indian passport.

Background of the Case:

Chrisella Valanka Kushi Raj Naidu, born on October 27, 2007, in Goa, initially lived with both Indian parents. When she was nearly three years old, her father abandoned the family, and her mother later renounced Indian citizenship to become a Portuguese citizen on February 10, 2015, due to better employment opportunities. The petitioner and her mother then moved to the United Kingdom, where Chrisella attended school and her mother worked.

The issue arose when Chrisella’s Indian passport expired on December 2, 2019. Her application for renewal was denied by the Indian High Commission in the UK on August 5, 2020, citing her residence with a single foreign national parent as grounds for the refusal. This decision rendered Chrisella stateless, ignoring her inherent claim to Indian citizenship by birth. She then approached the Bombay High Court seeking judicial intervention.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

Chrisella, represented by Advocate Abhijeet Kamat, argued that her Indian citizenship, acquired by birth under the Citizenship Act, 1955, could not be revoked merely due to her mother’s acquisition of Portuguese citizenship. The petitioner emphasized that she had neither renounced her Indian citizenship nor acquired any other nationality.

The petitioner’s legal team contended that the refusal to renew her passport was unjust and legally unsustainable. They argued that such a refusal violated her fundamental rights and left her in a precarious, stateless position. The petitioners urged the court to recognize her continued Indian citizenship and direct the authorities to renew her passport, thereby preserving her legal identity and nationality.

Arguments of the Respondent (Union of India):

Represented by Standing Counsel Raviraj Chodankar, the Union of India defended the decision of the Indian High Commission. The respondent argued that Chrisella’s circumstances had changed since her mother’s renunciation of Indian citizenship. They claimed that the petitioner’s custody by a foreign national parent questioned her eligibility for an Indian passport.

The respondents asserted that under the Passports Act, 1967, the government has discretion over issuing or refusing passports, especially in cases where the applicant’s nationality is in question. They maintained that the Indian High Commission’s decision was in accordance with the law and aimed at ensuring that only those with a clear and continuous link to India retained Indian citizenship and passport rights.

Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:

The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Chrisella, emphasizing that her citizenship by birth remained valid despite her mother’s change in nationality. The court’s judgment highlighted several key points:

• Child’s Citizenship by Birth: The court reaffirmed that Chrisella, by virtue of her birth in India to Indian parents, was an Indian citizen. The acquisition of foreign nationality by her mother did not impact her citizenship status. The court noted that Chrisella had not taken steps to renounce her Indian citizenship or acquire another nationality, thus retaining her Indian citizenship.
• Legal Misinterpretation by the Indian High Commission: The court found that the Indian High Commission had misinterpreted the petitioner’s eligibility for an Indian passport. The refusal based on her living with a single foreign parent was not legally justified. The court emphasized that Indian citizenship by birth is not automatically forfeited due to the subsequent actions of the parents.
• Right Against Statelessness: Justices Karnik and Menezes highlighted the violation of Chrisella’s rights due to the creation of a stateless situation. Statelessness, the court noted, contravenes principles of international law and constitutional values. The denial of her passport unjustly deprived her of her nationality and associated protections.
• Passport as a Constitutional Right: The court discussed the broader implications related to the Passports Act, 1967, and the Constitution of India. They highlighted that the right to a passport is integral to the right to travel and maintain one’s identity and citizenship. By refusing the passport, the High Commission infringed upon Chrisella’s fundamental rights.

Conclusion:

The Bombay High Court’s ruling reaffirms the rights of children born in India to Indian parents, emphasizing that citizenship by birth is a fundamental right that cannot be arbitrarily revoked due to parental actions. By ordering the issuance of an Indian passport to Chrisella, the court has safeguarded her right to nationality and prevented her from becoming stateless, thus upholding constitutional and international principles related to citizenship and identity.