Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.1. It is the further case of petitioners that petitioner No.2 registered himself as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder on 16.08.2017 under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'); he has been residing in India continuously since 08.12.2021; his brother, Ahmed Sayeed Bameher, born of the same parents, was granted Indian citizenship and holds an Indian Passport. Petitioner No.2 married Muskaan Begum, an Indian citizen, on 08.05.2023. While so, on 08.12.2022, petitioner No.2 applied on line for registration of Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(f) of the Act, in Form VI as per Rule 8(1)(a) of the Citizenship Rules, 2009. The application was allotted MHA File No. 2022050067. On 13.12.2022, petitioner No.2 submitted the printed Application form along with all necessary documents to the District Collector, Hyderabad (Respondent No.2). He furnished his valid Yemeni passport, OCI card, his mother's Indian Passport, oath of allegiance, and other required documents. 2.2. Petitioners further state that Respondent No.2 forwarded a positive report to Respondent No.1, finding Petitioner No.2 eligible in all respects with no adverse remarks. However, the Application remained pending without any response for nearly three years. On 18.09.2025, petitioner No.2 sent e mail to Respondent No.1 enquiring about the status of his Application. In response, Respondent No.1 issued the impugned proceeding dated 06.10.2025, which was communicated via e mail on 07.10.2025. The impugned proceeding stated that neither the applicant nor either of his parents were earlier citizens of independent India on the date of application and therefore the Petitioner No.2 is not eligible for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f) of the Act. Respondent No.1 requested the State Government to revisit the recommendation. Aggrieved by this proceeding, petitioners approached this Court.

(iv) Even assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner No.2 does not fall within Section 5(1)(f), Respondent No.1 ought to have considered the Application under Section 5(1)(g) of the Act. Petitioner No.2 has been registered as an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder since 16.08.2017 and has completed more than five years as an OCI Cardholder, thereby meeting the threshold prescribed under Section 5(1)(g). The documents pertaining to the OCI card were submitted along with the Application. The failure of Respondent No.1 to consider the eligibility of Petitioner No.2 under Section 5(1)(g) demonstrates complete non-application of mind.

21. The record reveals that Petitioner No.2 was born on 25.11.1995 and was 27-year-old on the date of the application, thereby satisfying the requirement of full age and capacity. His mother, Petitioner No.1, was born on 26.01.1963 in Hyderabad and is admittedly a citizen of India by birth, holding a valid Indian Passport. As held while answering Point No.(i), she was earlier citizen of independent India and continues to be so. Petitioner No.2 has been residing in India continuously since 08.12.2021 as evidenced by the entry and exit stamps in his passport and applied for citizenship on 08.12.2022, thereby completing twelve months of ordinary residence in India before the date of application. He is not an illegal migrant and has been lawfully residing in India on the basis of his OCI card granted on 16.08.2017. He has given an undertaking to renounce his Yemeni citizenship and has made the oath of allegiance as required under Rule 8. All necessary documents including a copy of his valid foreign passport, OCI card, and evidence of his mother's Indian citizenship have been submitted along with the application in Form VI.

23. Apart from Section 5(1)(f), the record also discloses that Petitioner No.2 satisfies the requirements under Section 5(1)(g) of the Act. He was registered as an OCI cardholder on 16.08.2017 and as on the date of his application on 08.12.2022, he had held OCI status for more than five years, meeting the threshold prescribed under Section 5(1)(g). The contention of Respondent No.1 that no application under Section 5(1)(g) has been found in the on line portal does not advance the case of Respondent No.1. Form VI is the common application form prescribed for registration under Section 5 of the Act. The application bearing MHA File No. 2022050067 was, admittedly, received by Respondent No.1 along with all supporting documents, including the OCI card. When the authorities were in possession of all material necessary to examine the eligibility of the applicant under all applicable provisions, the application ought to have been considered under every provision to which the applicant was entitled. The authorities cannot decline to consider eligibility under one provision merely because the applicant cited a different provision in the application form.