Introduction

This Division Bench decision addresses a recurring and sensitive question in Indian citizenship law: can Indian citizenship be granted by registration to minor applicants who remain citizens of another country, when that country’s law does not permit minors to renounce their citizenship and the applicants have only surrendered their foreign passports and obtained a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) from that country’s mission?

The respondents were a mother (Rasheeda Bano) and her two daughters (Respondents 2 and 3). The father, born in India, migrated to Pakistan in 1977 and became a Pakistani national. The family moved to India in 2008 with permission, and the daughters later applied for Indian citizenship by registration under Section 5(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, using Form VI under Rule 8(1)(a) of the Citizenship Rules, 2009. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had indicated a decision to grant registration, subject inter alia to submission of a Renunciation Certificate issued by Pakistan—proof that the applicants were no longer Pakistani citizens.

The applicants could not produce the Renunciation Certificate, citing the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, Section 14A, which (as urged) does not permit minors to renounce citizenship on their own. They had, however, surrendered their Pakistani passports and obtained NOCs from the Pakistan High Commission. A learned Single Judge treated the Renunciation Certificate as a rule of evidence rather than a substantive requirement and directed consideration of citizenship without insisting upon the certificate. The Union appealed. The Division Bench has now clarified the law.

Summary of the Judgment

• The High Court allowed the Union’s writ appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s judgment.
• The Court held that, given India’s prohibition on dual citizenship, formal renunciation of the existing foreign citizenship is a substantive precondition to registration as an Indian citizen under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
• NOCs issued by the Pakistan High Commission and surrender of Pakistani passports do not amount to renunciation of Pakistani citizenship.
• Section 14A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act governs renunciation for Pakistani citizens; until renunciation in the manner recognized by Pakistan is completed, the applicants remain Pakistani citizens.
• Therefore, the Indian authorities cannot register the respondents as Indian citizens without the Renunciation Certificate. The Court made clear that this conclusion applies irrespective of the applicants’ minority; there is no “minor’s exception” to the no-dual-citizenship rule.
• The Court left the door open for the applicants to be considered for registration once they satisfy all requirements specified by the MHA in earlier communications (Ext. P7 dated 17.07.2019 and Ext. P9 dated 19.03.2018).

Analysis

Statutory Framework and Factual Matrix

• Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 (the Act): Section 5 provides for acquisition of citizenship by registration. Although the precise clause invoked was Section 5(1)(f), the judgment’s reasoning applies across Section 5’s registration pathways: Indian law does not permit dual citizenship, so an applicant must not continue to be a citizen of another country at the time of registration.
• Citizenship Rules, 2009: Applications were made in Form VI under Rule 8(1)(a), and the MHA’s conditional approval required submission of a Renunciation Certificate from the Government of Pakistan.
• Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951—Section 14A: Governs renunciation by Pakistani citizens residing outside Pakistan. The Union emphasized that under the Pakistani regime, minors cannot independently renounce citizenship; renunciation is either derivative through the parent or available when majority thresholds are met. A Renunciation Certificate is the definitive proof that Pakistani citizenship has ceased.
• Key facts: Respondents 2 and 3 surrendered Pakistani passports and obtained NOCs from the Pakistan High Commission in India, but had not obtained a Renunciation Certificate under Pakistan’s law.

Precedents Cited

The Division Bench did not cite judicial precedents. The decision rests on a textual and structural reading of the governing statutes—the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951—together with the administrative framework (Citizenship Rules, 2009 and MHA’s conditional communications).

The absence of case citations underscores that the Bench saw the outcome as flowing directly from the statutory bar on dual citizenship and the need for legal certainty through formal renunciation recognized by the country of origin.

Legal Reasoning

1. No dual citizenship under Indian law.

   The Court began from the uncontroverted premise that the Citizenship Act, 1955, does not permit dual citizenship. For a person to become an Indian citizen by registration, that person cannot concurrently be a citizen of another country. This is not an evidentiary nicety; it is a substantive condition that goes to the eligibility of the applicant.

2. Renunciation must be real and legally effective in the foreign sovereign’s law.

   Whether Pakistani citizenship has ceased is determined by Pakistan’s law. Section 14A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act specifies how renunciation happens and when it takes effect (upon registration by the prescribed authority). Until that act is complete and recorded, the person remains a Pakistani citizen. Therefore, absent a Renunciation Certificate, the respondents continued to be Pakistani nationals.

3. NOC and passport surrender are not renunciation.

   The applicants’ surrender of Pakistani passports and the issuance of NOCs by the Pakistan High Commission do not equate to renunciation. A passport is evidence of citizenship, not the citizenship itself; surrendering it does not terminate nationality. An NOC merely expresses non-objection; it neither effects nor certifies cessation of nationality.

4. Minors are not exempt from the no-dual-citizenship rule.

   The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme does not carve out an exception for minors. If foreign law does not permit minors to renounce citizenship independently, Indian authorities cannot bridge that gap by granting Indian citizenship regardless. The correct course is compliance with the foreign law’s renunciation process—either derivative renunciation through parents if available or individual renunciation upon eligibility.

5. Rejection of the Single Judge’s “rule of evidence” approach.

   The Single Judge had treated the Renunciation Certificate requirement as merely evidentiary. The Division Bench disagreed, classifying it as a substantive precondition because it alone establishes that the applicant is not simultaneously a foreign national. Without such cessation, registration under Section 5 would produce dual citizenship, which Indian law prohibits.

6. Scope of the decision and pending administrative steps.

   While allowing the appeal, the Court did not foreclose the applicants’ path to citizenship. It expressly permitted consideration of their applications once all formalities—including the Renunciation Certificate—are satisfied, as already reflected in MHA’s earlier communications (Ext. P7 and Ext. P9).

Impact and Implications

1) Immediate consequences for applicants with Pakistani nationality

• Applicants who are Pakistani nationals must produce a Renunciation Certificate under Section 14A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act to be considered for registration. Surrender of passports and NOCs are insufficient.
• Minor applicants cannot be treated as a special class exempt from the renunciation requirement. Where Pakistan’s law restricts minors from renouncing independently, the timing and mode of renunciation will need to follow Pakistani law (e.g., derivative renunciation via a parent or individual renunciation when eligible).

2) Administrative consistency for MHA and State authorities

• The judgment validates MHA’s practice of insisting on a Renunciation Certificate, clarifying that the insistence is not a discretionary evidentiary demand but a legal necessity.
• Officers processing Section 5 applications should treat proof of cessation of foreign citizenship as a threshold eligibility issue and maintain uniformity across cases.

3) Broader doctrinal reinforcement

• The ruling strengthens the principle that nationality status is determined by the foreign sovereign’s law for purposes of verifying cessation of foreign citizenship. Indian courts will not deem foreign citizenship to have ended without the foreign state’s formal recognition of renunciation.
• It also underscores a clean demarcation between “evidence” and “substantive conditions”: where the statute prohibits dual citizenship, the proof that foreign citizenship has ended is not merely evidence—it is indispensable to satisfying the statutory bar.

4) Humanitarian and practical considerations

• Families may experience delays where foreign law restricts a minor’s ability to renounce citizenship. The judgment implies that humanitarian considerations cannot override statutory limits on citizenship. Practical solutions include pursuing derivative renunciation through a parent where available or waiting until the applicant meets the eligibility threshold under the foreign law.
• Applicants who surrendered passports prior to eligible renunciation are not stateless; nationality persists despite the absence of a passport. They should regularize status through the foreign state’s renunciation process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Renunciation vs. Passport Surrender: Renunciation is a legal act that ends citizenship under the foreign state’s law; the foreign state typically issues a formal certificate. Surrendering a passport only hands back a travel document; it does not end nationality.
• No Objection Certificate (NOC): A mission’s statement that it does not object to India granting citizenship. It does not and cannot terminate the person’s nationality under the foreign law.
• Dual Citizenship Prohibition: Under the Indian framework, a person cannot be both an Indian citizen and a foreign citizen. Thus, any pathway to Indian citizenship first requires that the person ceases to be a foreign citizen.
• Registration (Section 5) vs. Naturalization (Section 6): Registration covers specified categories (e.g., persons of Indian origin, spouses of Indian citizens, certain minors), whereas naturalization involves residence and good character requirements. Both pathways respect the no-dual-citizenship norm.
• Rule of Evidence vs. Substantive Requirement: An evidentiary rule governs how to prove facts; a substantive requirement defines the core conditions that must be met. Here, the Renunciation Certificate is not merely evidence; it is the legal hallmark that the foreign nationality has ended—an essential condition.
• Intra-Court Appeal: An appeal to a Division Bench from a Single Judge’s decision within the same High Court, as permitted by the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

What the Court Did Not Decide

• The Bench did not rest its decision on the appellant’s submission relating to Section 5(1)(d) (that both parents must be Indian citizens for grant to minors). The core holding does not depend on that point; it turns on the no-dual-citizenship rule and the necessity of a valid renunciation under the foreign law.
• The Court did not opine on the merits of the applicants’ eligibility beyond the renunciation requirement. It left their applications open for consideration upon full compliance.

Practical Guidance for Future Applicants

• Before applying under Section 5, confirm whether you still hold a foreign nationality. If yes, obtain a formal renunciation under that country’s law and secure the official Renunciation Certificate.
• Do not assume that surrendering a foreign passport or obtaining an NOC suffices; they are not substitutes for a renunciation recognized by the foreign sovereign.
• For minors, explore whether the foreign law allows derivative renunciation via a parent. If not, plan the timing of the application for when individual renunciation becomes legally possible.
• Maintain all communications and compliance proofs (e.g., documents specified in MHA communications like Ext. P7 and Ext. P9) for a complete application record.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rasheeda Bano establishes a clear and consequential principle: the Renunciation Certificate from the foreign state is not a mere evidentiary add-on but a substantive precondition for registration as an Indian citizen under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. There is no exception for minors. Until the foreign nationality is legally and formally terminated in accordance with the foreign law—here, Pakistan’s Section 14A—the applicant remains a foreign citizen and is ineligible for registration in India.

This ruling provides administrative clarity, aligns the citizenship regime with the prohibition of dual citizenship, and sets a uniform standard for applicants who are foreign nationals, including minors. While it may prolong the path to citizenship in complex cross-border family situations, it reinforces legal certainty: citizenship status is a matter of law, not inference, and must be evidenced by the foreign state’s own renunciation process.