A. T HE R IGHT TO NAT IONALIT Y FOR EV E RY INDIV IDUAL
A.2 Right to nationality in Indian law
Where the petitioner’s nationality is less than conclusive,
courts consistently interpret domestic law to assert the right to
nationality of the concerned parties. Mangal Sain is an early case
from the Punjab High Court.32 The petitioner argued that he had
migrated from his birthplace in present-day Pakistan to India in
1944 and had been ordinarily resident in India since then and
was thus an Indian citizen under Articles 5 and 6 of the
Constitution. The Court interpreted ‘migrate’ in Article 6 broadly
to hold that the petitioner’s movements, ambitions, sentiments,
conduct, and habits all evinced his clear intention to remain and
permanently settle in India (much like the conditions of the
aforementioned genuine link test), and that he was, therefore, a
citizen of India. The Court was sensitive to the effect that a narrow
construction of ‘migrate’ would – in cases like the petitioner’s
who possessed no other nationality – make such persons stateless.
More recently in Prabhleen Kaur, a young woman
approached the Delhi High Court after her Indian passport
renewal application was denied as her parents’ nationality was
considered ‘doubtful’.33 Since the petitioner was born in India
after 1987, she would be an Indian citizen if either of her parents
were Indian citizens at the time of her birth. The Court dismissed
the Ministry of External Affairs’ (‘MEA’) impugnation as unjust. It
held that a neighbour’s allegation that her parents were Afghan
citizens, and some discrepancies in the birth registry at Amritsar
were not sufficient evidence to dislodge the petitioner’s assertion
that their family had migrated to India during Partition. The
Court held that the MEA could not deny a passport on a mere
doubt, especially when the petitioner and both her parents had
been issued passports in the past. Crucially, the Court reiterated
the adverse consequences of MEA’s stance – the petitioner had
never set foot in Afghanistan, and clearly had no moorings to any
country but India, so doubting her nationality at this stage would
32
Mangal Sain v Shrimati Shanno Devi AIR (1959) P&H 175 (Punjab & Haryana High Court). It was upheld
by the Supreme Court in Shanno Devi v Mangal Sain AIR (1961) SC 58.
33
Prabhleen Kaur v Union of India & Anr (2018) 253 DLT 602 (Delhi High Court).
chapter i • status
49
SECTION I.A.2