Unique Citizenship Pathways under Section 5(1)(c): S. Ramya v. Union of India

1. Introduction

In S. Ramya v. Union of India (2025:MHC:804), the Madras High Court addressed a previously unencountered factual matrix involving a child born in India to Sri Lankan refugee parents. The petitioner, S. Ramya, having grown up and lived her entire life in India—holding an Indian birth certificate, voter identity card, passport, completing her education in India, marrying an Indian national, and raising an Indian‐born child—suddenly found her citizenship status called into question following the periodic renewal proceedings of her parents’ refugee permits. The core issue was whether she could be registered as an Indian citizen under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, without first returning to Sri Lanka and re‐entering India on a visa. Respondents 1–3 (Union of India Ministries and the Foreigners Regional Registration Office) had insisted on the literal requirement that any non‑citizen applicant must not be an “illegal migrant,” which they argued necessitated departure and re‑entry. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct respondents to consider her representation of 10.02.2025 as an application under Section 5(1)(c).

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy disposed of the petition on 20 March 2025, holding that:

The petitioner’s representation dated 10.02.2025 must be treated as an application under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (registration of persons married to Indian citizens and ordinarily resident for seven years).
The requirement that she must return to Sri Lanka and re‑enter India on a visa is inapplicable because she does not qualify as an “illegal migrant” under Section 2(1)(b).
The authorities may insist on standard procedural formalities and documents, but must waive the online‑portal prerequisite or enable her to apply electronically.
Until a final decision on her citizenship application is reached, no adverse steps (such as deportation) shall be taken against her.
The petitioners’ parents’ applications for renewal of stay permits may also be considered in light of this approach.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Although the Court did not rely on previous judicial decisions, it conducted an in‐depth statutory analysis of:

Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (Citizenship by birth) and its amendments (1987 and 2003).
Section 5 (Citizenship by registration), particularly sub‑clause (1)(c) for persons married to Indian citizens.
Section 6 (Citizenship by naturalization), though not directly invoked on the facts.
Section 2(1)(b) (Definition of “illegal migrant”).
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (which expanded registration categories).
Applicable provisions of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the Foreigners Act, 1946, by reference to “illegal migrant” exemptions.

These statutory benchmarks shaped the Court’s approach, in absence of binding case law on identical facts.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in three stages:

Interpretation of “illegal migrant”: Section 2(1)(b) defines an illegal migrant as a foreigner entering without valid travel documents or overstaying. Ramya did not enter India—she was born here. She never held Sri Lankan documents. Accordingly, the requirement to re‑enter India on a visa (imposed to cure “illegal migrant” status) was inapplicable.
Construction of Section 5(1)(c): The Court emphasized the central government’s discretion to register under Section 5 any person “not being an illegal migrant” who is married to an Indian citizen and has ordinarily resided in India for seven years. The petitioner met every element: marriage since 2014, uninterrupted residence, and absence of migrant illegality.
Equity and Unique Facts: Recognizing the factual singularity—birth to recognized refugees, lifelong attachment to India, long‐standing treatment as citizen—the Court exercised remedial interpretation. It deemed no public interest in mandating departure and re‐entry, and directed the authority to waive the online portal limitation or facilitate her e‑application.

3.3 Impact

This decision establishes a crucial precedent for similarly situated persons:

It affirms that the “illegal migrant” bar cannot be mechanically applied to persons born in India to non‑citizen parents who have never held foreign travel documents.
It clarifies that discretionary registration under Section 5(1)(c) must be accessible in exceptional factual matrices, ensuring procedural flexibility (e‑portal waiver).
It signals administrative authorities to consider merit and equity in citizenship applications, rather than rigid formalism on visa formalities.
Potentially extends to children of refugees or stateless persons born in India who have integrated fully and hold Indian identity documents by oversight.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Citizenship by Birth vs. Citizenship by Registration: Section 3 grants citizenship to persons born in India under prescribed parentage conditions. Section 5 allows certain categories (including spouses of Indian citizens) to apply for citizenship registration.
Illegal Migrant: A foreigner who unlawfully enters or overstays in India. Stateless persons born here do not “enter” and therefore cannot be labelled illegal migrants solely on that ground.
Section 5(1)(c): Statutory provision enabling non‑citizens married to Indian nationals and ordinarily resident for seven years to seek registration as Indian citizens.
Discretion vs. Mandatory Procedure: While the Act prescribes documents and formats, the Central Government retains discretion to waive procedural requirements in exceptional cases.

5. Conclusion

S. Ramya v. Union of India breaks new ground by recognizing that long‑standing, factually unique residents—even those born to non‑citizen parents—must not be caught in a procedural trap that undermines substantive rights. By treating the petitioner’s representation as a valid Section 5(1)(c) application and relieving her of the anomalous requirement to exit and re‐enter India, the Madras High Court balanced legal rigor with equity. This precedent will guide future decisions involving children of refugees, stateless persons, and other categories whose life‐long ties to India merit compassionate and lawful recognition of citizenship.