India
Delhi High Court Rejects PIL for Dual Citizenship for Indian Diaspora Holding Foreign Citizenship. On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the grant of dual citizenship to members of the Indian diaspora who currently hold citizenship in another country. The division bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, made it clear that the issue of dual citizenship falls under the purview of Parliament and is not within the court’s jurisdiction to decide.
Court’s Stance on Jurisdiction
The PIL was filed by the Pravasi Legal Cell, an organization advocating for the rights of overseas Indians. The petition argued that under existing Indian law, individuals automatically forfeit their Indian citizenship upon acquiring a foreign passport. The petitioner’s counsel referred to a recent statement by the Union External Affairs Minister, who acknowledged that dual citizenship remains an “alive debate.”
Despite this, the bench pointed out that their decision is constrained by Article 9 of the Constitution of India, which addresses the voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship, and Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, which governs the termination of citizenship. The court observed, “We can’t ask them to take a call on this. They have to see national security…it has wide ramifications,” stressing that the issue must be resolved by the Parliament of India.
Parliamentary Consideration Encouraged
The court further noted that Parliament is currently in session, suggesting that the issue could be raised there through a Member of Parliament. The bench highlighted the government’s awareness of the matter, quoting the Minister’s statement, and underscored that any decision on this issue should be made by the legislative body.
As a result, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn. The petition had emphasized that granting dual citizenship could lead to significant contributions from the Indian diaspora in areas such as investment, trade, tourism, philanthropy, education, and the arts in India.
Petitioner’s Argument for Dual Citizenship
In its plea, the Pravasi Legal Cell argued that the denial of dual citizenship to the Indian diaspora creates barriers to exercising cultural rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The petition also referenced global practices, noting that nearly 130 countries, including many developed and developing nations, allow dual citizenship, sometimes with restrictions.
The organization contended that granting dual citizenship would not only enhance the diaspora’s ability to contribute to Indian society but also strengthen their connection to their cultural heritage. The plea asserted that without dual citizenship, many diaspora members might hesitate to invest or engage in entrepreneurial ventures in India due to uncertainties about their legal status and rights.
“By granting dual citizenship rights, India can leverage the expertise and capital of its diaspora to stimulate innovation, create employment opportunities, and bolster economic progress,” the plea read.
Legal and Constitutional Considerations
The petitioners also submitted a representation to the authorities in August of the previous year, requesting similar relief. The plea alternatively sought a directive for the authorities to consider this representation, arguing that while Article 11 of the Constitution grants Parliament discretion in citizenship matters, this discretion should be understood to contain implied limitations.
The plea was filed through Advocate Robin Raju, who argued that granting dual citizenship would help foster a stronger sense of belonging among the Indian diaspora and enhance their contributions to India’s development. However, the court ultimately ruled that this issue should be left to Parliament to decide, reiterating its position that national security and broader implications must be considered in such matters.
