A minor Indian citizen by descent cannot be denied exit from India on the basis of administrative demands to surrender their Indian passport or pay overstay fines, even if they hold foreign citizenship. The Telangana High Court’s ruling affirms that statutory protections under the Citizenship Act, 1955, prevail over executive guidelines, reinforcing the constitutional rights of children under Articles 14 and 21.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The minor petitioner, Niketan Panjela, was born in the United Kingdom on 23 March 2022 to an Indian citizen father. His birth was duly registered with the Indian Mission within the statutory period, and he was issued an Indian passport on 2 August 2022. By virtue of UK law, he automatically acquired British citizenship at birth. Upon attempting to depart India for the UK on 23 October 2025, he was deboarded by immigration authorities who demanded surrender of his Indian passport and payment of alleged overstay penalties.
Procedural History
- 23 March 2022: Minor born in the UK to Indian citizen father
- 2 August 2022: Indian passport issued to minor
- 13 September 2025: Minor entered India on Indian passport
- 9 December 2025: Exit permit application filed but pending due to demand for fees
- 23 October 2025: Minor deboarded at airport; passport retention and fine demanded
- January 2026: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC seeking immediate exit permit
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue an exit permit allowing the minor to travel to the UK on his existing Indian passport, without requiring surrender of the passport or payment of any overstay fine or penalty.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 4(1A) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 permits the state to compel a minor citizen by descent to surrender their Indian passport or pay overstay fees as a condition for exit, when the minor holds dual citizenship and has not yet attained majority.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Akshar Reddy v. Union of India to argue that Section 4(1A) explicitly protects the Indian citizenship of minors born abroad to Indian parents until they attain majority. The demand to surrender the passport and pay fines was arbitrary, lacked statutory basis, and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner clarified that he sought to travel on the same Indian passport, not a foreign one, negating any claim of passport violation.
For the Respondent
The State contended that under existing immigration guidelines, an Indian citizen cannot hold a foreign passport, and the minor’s British citizenship rendered his Indian passport invalid. The FRRO cited pending administrative procedures requiring payment of overstay fees for prolonged stay in India. The State argued that these were routine compliance measures, not punitive actions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a textual and purposive interpretation of Section 4(1A) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which states: "A person who is a citizen of India by descent... shall not cease to be a citizen of India by reason only of the fact that he has acquired citizenship of another country, until he attains the age of majority." The Court emphasized that this provision is not merely procedural but substantive, designed to protect the rights of minors who cannot exercise choice over dual nationality.
"The requirement of renunciation arises only upon attaining full age. During minority, the statutory right of citizenship cannot be curtailed by executive instructions or administrative guidelines."
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on immigration guidelines, holding that such directives cannot override a clear statutory provision. It noted that the minor had entered and sought to exit on the same Indian passport, with no evidence of fraud or misuse. The demand for overstay fines was deemed legally baseless, as the minor’s presence in India was lawful under his valid Indian passport. The Court further observed that no written order had been passed under the Citizenship Act to terminate his citizenship, making the coercive conditions unlawful.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that a minor citizen by descent under Section 4(1A) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, may travel abroad on their Indian passport without surrendering it or paying overstay fines. The respondents were directed to issue immediate exit clearance without imposing any coercive conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Citizenship by Descent Is Protected Until Majority
- Practitioners representing minors with dual citizenship must cite Section 4(1A) to resist arbitrary passport seizures or exit denials
- Administrative agencies cannot impose conditions not found in the statute, even if guided by internal circulars
- Any demand for renunciation before majority is ultra vires and void
Exit Permits Cannot Be Made Conditional on Fines or Passport Surrender
- No overstay fee can be levied on a minor holding a valid Indian passport, regardless of duration of stay
- Exit permits must be issued promptly upon proof of citizenship and valid travel documents
- Courts will intervene under Article 226 where executive action violates statutory protections for children
Documentary Citizenship Trumps Administrative Assumptions
- Birth registration with Indian Mission + valid Indian passport = prima facie proof of citizenship
- Dual foreign citizenship does not invalidate Indian citizenship during minority
- Burden lies on the State to prove cessation of citizenship through formal adjudication, not mere suspicion or guideline enforcement
