2021 STATELESSNESS AND THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 195 or both parents’ citizenship status.280 Thus far, courts have not provided meaningful relief for stateless persons seeking Indian citizenship. Second, in Felix Kaye,281 the Delhi HC declared that the technical status of a person being an illegal migrant does not bar the Indian government from considering their application for citizenship. For the HC, even though a person does not have valid travel documents at the time of entering India or such documents have expired, such person is eligible to apply for citizenship. Similarly, in Kiran Gupta,282 and National Human Rights Commission (“NHRC”),283 the courts held that stateless persons have the right to apply for Indian citizenship which should be considered by the government. The striking aspect in Kiran Gupta and NHRC is the courts’ cognisance of the petitioner’s statelessness, and attempt to prompt the government to consider their applications for citizenship. Third, in Ulaganathan,284 the Madras HC made two key findings. First, the HC said that keeping refugees in campsites in a prolonged state of statelessness is a contravention of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This ruling is in sharp contrast with the line of judgments that allowed the state unquestioned discretion in keeping refugees in camps.285 Second, the court applied Felix Kaye specifically in the context of Sri Lankan Tamils. In support of Felix Kaye’s ratio, the court stated that there are compelling reasons for relaxing documentation requirements for refugees.286 The court reasoned that a person on the run for their life could not legitimately be expected to adhere to technical provisions of the law. Further, in the court’s opinion, if such person has integrated themselves sufficiently in local society, they should be allowed to apply for formal citizenship.287 However, there is an important caveat to the Ulaganathan decision, wherein the petitioner was a descendant of Estate Tamils,288 a point the judgment paid special attention to.289 The court based its benevolent finding on the fact that the petitioners’ forefathers hailed from Tamil Nadu itself. Thus, while Ulaganathan’s application may be reserved for Estate Tamils wishing to apply 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 1955 Act, s 3 (1)(b), s 3 (1)(c). Felix Kaye v Foreigners Regional Registration Office 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8212. Kiran Gupta v State Election Commission 2020 SCC OnLine Pat 1641. National Human Rights Commission v State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742 : AIR 1996 SC 1234 (“NHRC”). P Ulaganathan v Govt. of India 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 8870 : AIR 2019 Mad 246 As discussed in Part III (a). Ulaganathan (n 284). ibid. As in Part II (b). Ulaganathan (n 284).