Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale set aside the order dated 31 December 2019 passed by the Deputy Collector (General), Mumbai Suburban District, which had rejected an application for Indian citizenship. The Court held that the petitioner, who had entered India as a minor and had resided in the country for nearly 60 years, could not be rendered stateless. The matter was remitted to the Deputy Collector for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with a direction to decide the application within three weeks from the date of uploading of the order.

The petitioner was born on 6 September 1955 in Kamuli, Uganda, to parents holding British passports. She entered India on 15 February 1966 at the age of ten, accompanied by her mother and younger brother. Her parents are now deceased. She is married to an Indian citizen who holds a valid Indian passport, and both of her children are Indian by birth and possess Indian passports.

Also Read: “Tapentadol Hydrochloride Not in NDPS Schedule and No Divergent View Cited: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail”

The petitioner first applied for an Indian passport on 3 April 1997. In response, the authorities sought travel documentation to verify how she entered India. She submitted her mother’s passport in support. However, no response was received. On 14 May 2008, she applied again but was once more asked to produce travel documents. Once again, her application elicited no further communication from the authorities.

A third application was filed on 17 May 2012. On this occasion, the petitioner was advised that she must first register as an Indian citizen before her passport application could be considered. Acting on this guidance, she submitted an online application for Indian citizenship on 15 March 2019, along with the necessary supporting documents.

The application was disposed of by an order dated 31 December 2019 issued by the Deputy Collector (General), Mumbai Suburban District. The rejection was based on findings that the petitioner was a stateless national and had submitted incorrect information regarding the validity of her visa. According to the records of the Greater Mumbai Police (Special Branch II), the petitioner had no valid passport or visa. Yet, in her application, she claimed that her visa was valid until 21 March 2019.

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging this rejection. She clarified in her pleadings that the incorrect mention of visa validity was a bona fide error. She submitted that she was not stateless in the legal sense, as she had entered India legally as a minor with her mother’s documentation and had since resided continuously in India. She relied on the fact that she had no criminal record, had never been deported, and had family members who were Indian citizens by birth.

The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Mrs. Sulabha Sharad Bavadekar v. Union of India & Ors., where the Court held that in the absence of any material demonstrating that the petitioner’s stay in India had become illegal at any point, denial of citizenship was unwarranted.

The respondents submitted that the petitioner had failed to take the necessary steps to acquire Ugandan citizenship when advised by the Ugandan authorities. They referred to a communication from the Ugandan government asking the petitioner to complete formalities required to establish her Ugandan citizenship, which she allegedly ignored. However, the State’s counsel fairly stated during the hearing that the petitioner could not be termed an “illegal migrant.”

The Division Bench, having heard both parties, began its analysis by affirming that there was no dispute about the petitioner’s lawful entry into India. The Court recorded:
“Admittedly, the Petitioner is not an ‘illegal migrant’. She has entered India as a minor, on valid documents of her mother and hence, her stay in India is not illegal.”

On the question of the petitioner’s current status and the rationale behind the rejection of her citizenship application, the Court considered whether an incorrect entry regarding visa validity could constitute valid grounds for rejection. Referring to the petitioner’s clarification in paragraph 10 of her writ petition, the Court noted that the incorrect visa validity date was explained as a bona fide mistake.

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had resided in India for several decades and had formed familial and social roots within the country. It stated:
“Ideally, the Petitioner ought to have taken steps to regularize her continued stay in India. Be that as it may, in the absence of any illegal act committed by the Petitioner; 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 cannot be rendered stateless.”

The Court found no evidence of criminality, fraud, or any violation of Indian immigration laws that would justify a denial of citizenship. It also noted that no action was taken against her throughout her long stay in India and that the impugned order was solely based on the visa detail error and the assumption of statelessness.

The Court also considered the communication from Ugandan authorities that was cited by the respondents. While acknowledging that the petitioner did not act upon the advice to initiate steps for recognition as a Ugandan citizen, the Court found this inaction insufficient to label her stateless in the absence of any assertion by Uganda that she was a national.

In this context, the Court referred to Mrs. Sulabha Sharad Bavadekar v. Union of India, where it was held that mere technicalities or lack of documents, without evidence of illegality, cannot justify denial of citizenship. While the present judgment does not quote that case verbatim, it adopts a similar legal approach.

Also Read: “The Original Object of the Acquisition Has Already Been Lost and It Has Become Unworkable”: Madras High Court Quashes Entire Land Acquisition Proceedings Under Integrated Township Scheme

After considering the facts, submissions, and documents on record, the Bombay High Court Division Bench issued the following direction:
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we remit the matter back to the Respondent No.3-Deputy Collector (GEN), Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai to consider the Petitioner’s Application for Citizenship afresh in accordance with law.”

The Court further ordered:
“The Authority concerned is requested to decide the said matter within a period of three weeks from the date of uploading this order, uninfluenced by the earlier order dated 31st December 2019, impugned herein.”

To ensure compliance, the matter was directed to be placed on the supplementary board on 29 April 2025. The Court also allowed all parties to act on authenticated copies of the judgment to avoid procedural delay.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumedh Ruikar, Mr. Aditya Chitale, Mr. Prathamesh Bhosale, Mr. Prashant Shetty, i/b MNSQ Legal

For the Respondents: Mr. Ajinkya Jaibhye for Respondents 2 and 5; Smt. P. H. Kantharia, Government Pleader for Respondents 3 and 4

Case Title: Ila Jatin Popat v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: W.P. No. 3434 of 2022

Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale

[Read/Download order]