Domicile Certificate Can’t Be Denied Solely On Place Of Birth If Permanent Residence Is In Kerala: Kerala High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, on January 19, set aside a revenue authority’s refusal to issue a domicile certificate to a petitioner on the sole ground that he and his parents were born and raised outside the State. The Court held that birth outside Kerala cannot, by itself, justify denial where the applicant’s permanent residence and social belongingness are demonstrably in Kerala. The dispute arose after the petitioner’s domicile application was rejected by the Tahsildar, citing his birth in Kolkata and alleging he was brought up there, despite records indicating sustained residence and education in Kerala. Directing immediate relief, the Court ordered the Tahsildar to issue the domicile certificate within two days.
The writ petition was filed by a 19-year-old applicant challenging the rejection of his application for issuance of a domicile certificate by the revenue authorities in Kerala. The rejection was based on the ground that the applicant and his parents were born and brought up outside Kerala. The applicant was born in Kolkata, West Bengal, but asserted that his parents had shifted to Kozhikode in Kerala in 2007 and permanently settled there. He stated that his entire schooling, from the first standard up to higher secondary education, was completed in Kerala.
In support of his claim, the applicant produced school certificates, an Aadhaar card reflecting permanent residence in Kozhikode, a ration card issued in the name of his mother showing a Kerala address, and the death certificate of his father issued in Kerala. The Village Officer, after conducting an enquiry, recommended issuance of the domicile certificate. Despite this, the Tahsildar rejected the application citing provisions of the Kerala Land Revenue Manual, stating that a domicile certificate could be issued only if the applicant was born and brought up in Kerala. The applicant approached the High Court seeking interference, citing urgency due to the requirement of a domicile certificate for recruitment to the Indian Army.
The Court first examined the factual basis of the rejection and observed that “it is stated that the petitioner was not only born, but even brought up in Kolkata. The latter finding is factually incorrect.” It recorded that the documents produced showed the applicant had completed his schooling entirely in Kerala and that “no materials are available to indicate that the petitioner was brought up outside Kerala.”
On the legal framework, the Court stated that there was “no legal provision that governs the issuance of a Domicile Certificate” and that guidance was drawn from the Kerala Land Revenue Manual, which was “not a statute or a legal document, but is only a set of guidelines.” It observed that guidelines could not override settled legal principles.
While referring to clauses relating to nativity and domicile certificates, the Court noted that although the Manual treated both as similar, “the concept of domicile has a different connotation, legally.” The Court explained that domicile in law consists of domicile of origin and domicile of choice and that “generally, domicile under law is fixed to a country and not to any region inside a country like a State.”
Relying on precedent, the Court quoted that “India recognises only one domicile, namely, domicile in the territory of India,” and that the term domicile used in administrative rules was often employed “not in its technical legal sense but in a popular sense as meaning residence.” The Court observed that for purposes such as recruitment, the requirement of a domicile certificate was intended to identify permanent residence and intention to reside permanently or indefinitely.
Applying these principles, the Court recorded that the applicant had “wholly adapted to the State of Kerala” and that all circumstances indicated permanent residence in Kozhikode. It observed that denying the certificate in such circumstances “would be absolute injustice.”
The Court directed that “Exhibit P8, to the extent it denies the Domicile Certificate to the petitioner… is set aside. The second respondent is directed to issue the Domicile Certificate as sought for by the petitioner forthwith, at any rate, within an outer period of two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. Adithya Rajeev, Advocate; Smt. S. Parvathi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Amminikutty K., Senior Government Pleader
Case Title: Sohan V.M. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:4236
Case Number: WP(C) No. 1781 of 2026
Bench: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
