PIL in Delhi HC, seeks directions to MEA, MHA to take appropriate steps to permit dual citizenship for Indian diaspora living abroad

The bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and also comprising Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, is scheduled to hear the matter on Wednesday.

Plea moved by Pravasi Legal Cell, NGO working for welfare of migrants through Advocate Robin Raju, stated that the Indian diaspora, many of whom were born in India but moved abroad for employment or business, has raised concerns that Indian citizenship is automatically forfeited upon acquiring foreign citizenship. They argue that this forfeiture is not due to a renunciation of loyalty but rather for practical reasons. The diaspora believes that allowing dual citizenship could significantly benefit India through increased investment, trade, tourism, philanthropy, education, and cultural contributions.

Plea stated that in 2002, a High Level Committee under the chairmanship of LM Singhvi recommended, inter alia the feasibility of dual citizenship. In 2003, The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003 allowed for the registration of OCIs. Its statements of objects and reasons expressly stated that the Central Government had decided to make provisions for the grant of dual citizenship by the said Amendment Act. In 2005, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2005 was enacted and again it was expressly held that the OCI scheme was to provide dual citizenship to persons of Indian origin abroad.

It further stated that on July 19, 2022, as per data put out by the Ministry of Home Affairs in Lok Sabha, it was revealed that over 9.24 lakh citizens renounced their citizenship during the period 2015-2021. And on December 23, 2023, the External Affairs Minister opined that the debate regarding dual citizenship is alive.

The Constitution of India does not bar the grant of dual citizenship in India. While Article 9 specifies that a person will lose Indian citizenship upon voluntarily gaining citizenship of another country, it is submitted that Article 11 empowers the Parliament to make any provisions to alter or terminate citizenship. Plea also submitted that nothing in the constitution bars the Parliament from exercising power under Article 11 to grant dual citizenship, as it did through the 2003 Amendment. To make this claim, the petitioners reference the Constitutional Assembly debates. They point out that a constitutional amendment proposing dual citizenship was made by KT Shah, but was not acted upon at the time of promulgation of the Constitution because the complicated questions of partition were looming large. Accordingly, dual citizenship was left for the Parliament to consider in the future through Article 11, the Plea stated.

The plea stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondents to consider the issue on August 10, 2023, and since then, the petitioner has seen the issue becoming part of discourse in the media and political realm on a more regular basis. The External Affairs Minister of India a few months ago also opined that, though there are certain challenges in providing dual citizenship, the debate regarding it is ongoing and alive. While, India being a developing nation, the dual citizenship rights must be seriously considered, and this Court, by the way, writ/order shall direct the respondents to work out the measures for the implementation of the same, plea read. (ANI)