‘Requires parliamentary legislation’: Delhi HC refuses dual citizenship plea

The petition underscored that around 130 countries, including developed and developing nations, had accepted the policy with certain limitations, and thus a grant of dual citizenship would enhance India’s relations with developed countries

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Wednesday refused to consider a plea seeking a dual citizenship grant for Indian diaspora holding their citizenship presently at some other foreign country, saying that the issue has wider ramifications on national security that cannot be visualised by the courts.

(Representative Photo)

“That is not for the courts to decide and requires parliamentary legislation. That is for the Parliament, not for us. We cannot legislate. Please go there. This will have ramifications for national security. We, as courts, can’t take a call. These are matters of national security. It has got wide ramifications that we cannot even visualise as a court. This doesn’t fall within our domain,” a bench of acting chief justice Manmohan and justice Tushar Rao Gedeala said to advocate Robin Raju, who represented the petitioner, Legal Cell (PLC).

In its petition, PLC, claiming to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, asserted that allowing dual citizenship would result in fresh initiatives, enormous funding, new investments, etc.

The petition underscored that around 130 countries, including developed and developing nations, had accepted the policy with certain limitations, and thus a grant of dual citizenship would enhance India’s relations with developed countries.

The plea went on to add that the high-level committee on Indian diaspora constituted by the Centre had called upon the Parliament to grant dual citizenship to Indians who were grappling with the increased demands of globalization.

“The Constitution of India does not in any manner bar dual citizenship after the commencement of the Constitution and left such matters to be decided by Parliament within its constitutional limits,” the petition read.

The petition before the high court also pointed out that Section 9(1) of the Citizenship Act, which states that a person would lose Indian citizenship upon voluntarily gaining citizenship of another country, is unconstitutional so far as it failed to recognise that voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship was not equal to voluntary divestment of Indian citizenship.

“The denial of dual citizenship rights to a significant number of Indians settled outside India causes a hurdle to the fulfillment of the cultural rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. Article 30 ensures the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This lack of dual citizenship can result in bureaucratic hurdles, legal complexities, and practical constraints that impede their ability to contribute effectively to the cultural and educational landscape of the country,” the petition read.

Absence of dual citizenship rights, the petition stated, created a sense of detachment and disconnection from the cultural roots and heritage.

During the hearing, advocate Robin Raju asserted that recently the union external affairs minister had opined that though the grant of dual citizenships for Indians living abroad came with a myriad of complications, the debate was “still alive.” He, however, added that PLC had also preferred a representation seeking a similar relief, but the Centre was yet to decide the same.

Considering the contention, the court refused to pass an order directing the Centre to take a call on the representation, saying that the same was in the teeth of Article 9 of the Citizenship Act.

“We can’t ask them to take a call on this. Your representation today is in the teeth of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act. Courts can’t act contrary to article 9,” the bench said to Raju.