Bombay High Court: In the present case, the petitioner sought quashing and setting aside of the order dated 31-12-2019 passed by Respondent 3, Deputy Collector (General), Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai, whereby the petitioner’s application for grant of Indian Citizenship was disposed of on the ground that she did not fulfill the conditions of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale, JJ., opined that the petitioner could not be rendered stateless as no illegal act was committed by the petitioner; her husband and children held a valid Indian passport; and the petitioner herself being a senior citizen had resided in India for the past 60 years. The Court requested Respondent 3 to consider the petitioner’s application afresh.
Respondent 3 observed that as per the available information with the Greater Mumbai Police, Office of the DCP, Special Branch-II, Crime Detection Department, the petitioner was a stateless national by birth and even though she did not have any valid passport or visa, in her application she had mentioned that her visa was valid upto 21-3-2019.
The petitioner stated that she was born on 6-9-1955 in Kamuli, Uganda and her parents held British passports. She further stated that she along with her younger brother accompanied her parents to India on 15-2-1966, when she was 10 years old and now, she was married to an Indian citizen holding a valid Indian passport and had two children who were born in India, thus, they too had Indian passport. On 3-4-1997, the petitioner applied for an Indian passport and submitted her mother’s passport, to verify as to how she entered India. Since the authorities did not give any response, on 14-5-2008, the petitioner once again applied for an Indian passport, but again there was no response.
On 17-5-2012, the petitioner applied for the third time but was advised to first register herself as an Indian Citizen, without which her request for passport would not be considered. Thus, on 15-3-2019, she made an online application and submitted necessary documents, however, by the impugned order, Respondent 3 disposed of her application holding that she was a stateless national and had mentioned incorrect details regarding the validity of her visa.
The Court opined that the petitioner was not an ‘illegal migrant’ as she entered India as a minor, on valid documents of her mother and thus, her stay in India was not illegal. The Court stated that the petitioner ought to have taken steps to regularize her continued stay in India, but still in the absence of any illegal act committed by the petitioner; and her husband and children holding valid Indian passport; the petitioner herself now being a senior citizen having resided in India for the past 60 years, the petitioner could not be rendered stateless.
The Court thus remitted the matter back to Respondent 3 to consider the petitioner’s application afresh, for Citizenship, in accordance with law. The Court requested Respondent 3 to decide the matter within three weeks from the date of uploading the present order.
The matter would next be listed on 29-4-2025.
[Ila Jatin Popat v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 993, decided on 3-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sumedh Ruikar with Aditya Chitale, Prathamesh Bhosale, and Prashant Shetty, i/b MNSQ Legal, for the Petitioner.
For the Respondents: Ajinkya Jaibhye, for Respondents 2 and 5; P.H. Kantharia, Government Pleader, for Respondents 3 and 4.
