Telangana HC: Child of a Current Indian Citizen Eligible Under Section 5(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act

The Telangana High Court set aside a Union Ministry rejection, holding that Section 5(1)(f) covers children of present Indian citizens, not only former ones, and directed fresh consideration of the citizenship application within four weeks.

The Telangana High Court, in a judgment delivered on 22 April 2026, allowed a writ petition challenging a Ministry of Home Affairs proceeding that had declared a Yemeni national ineligible for Indian citizenship by registration. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, sitting singly, held that the Ministry's reading of Section 5(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 — which confined the phrase “was earlier citizen of independent India” to former citizens who had since lost Indian citizenship — was plainly erroneous and produced absurd results. The petitioner's mother was born in Hyderabad in 1963 and has been an Indian citizen continuously since birth. The court found that this fact alone satisfied the parental citizenship requirement under Section 5(1)(f), set aside the Ministry's deficiency letter dated 6 October 2025, and directed fresh consideration of the application within four weeks.

The Citizenship Application and the Ministry's Rejection

Petitioner No. 2, born on 25 November 1995 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, holds Yemeni citizenship. His mother, Petitioner No. 1, is an Indian citizen by birth, born on 26 January 1963 in Hyderabad. His father is a Yemeni national. His brother, born of the same parents, had already been granted Indian citizenship and holds an Indian passport.

Petitioner No. 2 was registered as an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder on 16 August 2017 under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act. He has been residing in India continuously since 8 December 2021. He married Muskaan Begum, an Indian citizen, on 8 May 2023.

On 8 December 2022, he applied online for registration as an Indian citizen under Section 5(1)(f) of the Act, using Form VI as required by Rule 8(1)(a) of the Citizenship Rules, 2009. The application was assigned MHA File No. 2022050067. He submitted the printed form along with his Yemeni passport, OCI card, his mother's Indian passport, an oath of allegiance, and other required documents to the District Collector, Hyderabad (Respondent No. 2).

The District Collector examined the application and forwarded a positive report to the Ministry, finding Petitioner No. 2 eligible in all respects with no adverse remarks. The application then sat without any response for nearly three years. On 18 September 2025, Petitioner No. 2 sent an email to the Ministry enquiring about the status. In response, the Ministry issued a proceeding dated 6 October 2025, communicated by email on 7 October 2025.

That proceeding stated that neither the applicant nor either of his parents was an earlier citizen of independent India, and therefore Petitioner No. 2 was not eligible under Section 5(1)(f). The Ministry directed the State Government to revisit the District Collector's positive recommendation.

The Legal Question: What Does "Was Earlier Citizen of Independent India" Mean?

Section 5(1)(f) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 permits the Central Government to register as a citizen any person of full age and capacity who, or either of whose parents, “was earlier citizen of independent India,” and who has been ordinarily resident in India for twelve months immediately before making the application.

The Ministry's position was that this phrase applied only to persons who had held Indian citizenship at some point but had since ceased to be citizens — that is, former citizens. Because Petitioner No. 2's mother was a current Indian citizen and had never ceased to be one, the Ministry argued she was not a “former citizen” and therefore the provision did not apply.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that this reading was contrary to the plain language of the provision. The word “was” simply denotes a point in time since India became independent on 15 August 1947. A person who is currently a citizen necessarily was a citizen of independent India at the time citizenship was acquired. Accepting the Ministry's interpretation would produce the absurd result that a child of a person who had renounced Indian citizenship would be eligible, while a child of a current Indian citizen would not be.

The Ministry, through the Additional Solicitor General, maintained that the applicant's mother, being a current citizen, had never been a “former citizen” and therefore did not satisfy the statutory condition. The Ministry also contended that no final decision had been taken on the application, making the writ petition premature.

How the Court Reasoned on the Statutory Interpretation

Justice Bheemapaka rejected the Ministry's interpretation as unsustainable. The court held that the word “earlier” in the phrase qualifies the point in time when citizenship was held — meaning at any point since 15 August 1947 — and does not restrict the provision to persons who have since lost citizenship. A person who is currently a citizen of India necessarily was a citizen of independent India from the moment citizenship was acquired. The phrase, on its plain reading, encompasses both current and former citizens.

The court identified three absurd consequences that would flow from the Ministry's reading. First, a child of a person who renounced Indian citizenship would be eligible, but a child of a current Indian citizen would not — giving greater rights to children of former citizens than to children of present ones. Second, a child of an Indian citizen who was not registered at birth and holds another nationality would have no remedy at all under Section 5(1)(f). Third, the interpretation would effectively compel an Indian citizen to renounce citizenship so that their child could become eligible to apply. The court held that no statute can be interpreted to produce such results.

The court also applied a purposive lens. Section 5(1)(f) was enacted to address the situation of children of Indian citizens or former citizens who, by reason of birth outside India or non-registration at birth, hold the nationality of another country. Confining the provision to former citizens would render it nugatory for the very class of persons it was designed to benefit.

On the facts, it was undisputed that Petitioner No. 1 was born in Hyderabad on 26 January 1963, after independence, and has held Indian citizenship continuously since birth. Her status as an Indian citizen on the date of the application was not contested by the Ministry. The court held that the parental citizenship requirement under Section 5(1)(f) was therefore fully satisfied.

Whether the Writ Petition Was Premature

The Ministry argued that since no final decision had been taken on the citizenship application, the writ petition was premature and not maintainable. The court rejected this contention.

A careful reading of the proceeding dated 6 October 2025 showed that the Ministry had not merely sought clarification or called for additional documents. It had categorically recorded a finding that Petitioner No. 2 was not eligible under Section 5(1)(f) and had directed the State Government to revisit the District Collector's positive recommendation. That direction flowed from the Ministry's conclusion on eligibility. The proceeding created adverse civil consequences for Petitioner No. 2 and conveyed a decision on eligibility, not a tentative query.

The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 SCC 481, which held that where a statutory authority has already applied its mind and formed an opinion on the liability or otherwise of a person, the proceeding does not remain in the realm of a show cause notice and a writ petition is maintainable. The court also referred to a Division Bench judgment of the Telangana High Court in K. Praveen Kumar v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which applied the same principle, holding that where an authority confronts a person with definite conclusions rather than charges, the subsequent proceedings become an idle ceremony.

Applying these principles, the court held that the impugned proceeding bore the character of a predetermined decision on the merits and was amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Eligibility Under Section 5(1)(f) and Section 5(1)(g)

Having rejected the Ministry's interpretation, the court examined whether Petitioner No. 2 had in fact satisfied all eligibility conditions under Section 5(1)(f) and Rule 8 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

Petitioner No. 2 was 27 years old on the date of application, satisfying the full age and capacity requirement. His mother is an Indian citizen by birth. He had been residing in India continuously since 8 December 2021 and applied on 8 December 2022, completing twelve months of ordinary residence before the application. He is not an illegal migrant and had been lawfully residing in India on the basis of his OCI card. He had given an undertaking to renounce Yemeni citizenship and had made the oath of allegiance as required. All necessary documents, including his foreign passport, OCI card, and evidence of his mother's Indian citizenship, were submitted in Form VI. The District Collector had forwarded a positive report with no adverse remarks.

The court also found that Petitioner No. 2 satisfied the requirements under Section 5(1)(g), which covers OCI cardholders who have held that status for more than five years and have been ordinarily resident in India for twelve months before the application. He was registered as an OCI cardholder on 16 August 2017 and had held that status for more than five years by the date of his application on 8 December 2022.

The Ministry had contended that no application under Section 5(1)(g) was found in the online portal and that the petitioner had not furnished the unique ten-digit file number generated upon submission under that provision. The court rejected this argument. Form VI is the common application form for registration under Section 5 of the Act. The application bearing MHA File No. 2022050067 was admittedly received along with all supporting documents, including the OCI card. When the authorities were in possession of all material necessary to examine eligibility under all applicable provisions, the application ought to have been considered under every provision to which the applicant was entitled. The authorities could not decline to consider eligibility under one provision merely because the applicant had cited a different provision in the application form.

The court was satisfied that Petitioner No. 2 had fulfilled all eligibility conditions under both Section 5(1)(f) and Section 5(1)(g). It was, however, conscious that the power to grant citizenship vests with the Central Government and that the court ought not to substitute its decision for that of the competent authority. Accordingly, it set aside the impugned proceeding and directed fresh consideration rather than issuing a direct mandamus to grant citizenship.

Order

The writ petition was allowed. The impugned proceeding dated 6 October 2025 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs bearing reference to MHA File No. 2022050067 was set aside.

The Ministry was directed to reconsider the application of Petitioner No. 2 bearing MHA File No. 2022050067 afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of the court's interpretation of Section 5(1)(f), and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The court directed that while reconsidering the application, the Ministry shall take into account the eligibility of Petitioner No. 2 under all applicable provisions of Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, including Section 5(1)(g). No costs were awarded. Miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.