Union of India Vs. Pranav Srinivasan (2024 INSC 792)

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Union of India...

In Union of India v. Pranav Srinivasan (2024 INSC 792), the Supreme Court ruled that Pranav Srinivasan, a foreign national born in Singapore to Indian-origin parents, could not claim Indian citizenship under Article 8 of the Constitution or Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Pranav sought to resume his Indian citizenship based on his grandparents’ birth in India and his parents’ renunciation of Indian citizenship after acquiring Singaporean nationality. The Court held that Article 8 applies only to persons of Indian origin residing abroad at the time of the Constitution’s commencement, and Section 8(2) requires valid renunciation of citizenship, which was not met in Pranav’s case. It emphasized that Indian citizenship laws must be interpreted strictly, and such citizenship cannot be granted based on a liberal approach. However, the Court allowed Pranav to apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f) of the Act, which requires foreign nationals to fulfill specific residency conditions.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

[Kotak Mahindra Bank (P) Ltd. v. Ambuj A. Kasliwal, (2021) 3 SCC 549] 16-02-2021

The Entire Waiver of Pre-deposit impermissible to file appeal before DRAT. Discretion of DRAT to reduce pre-deposit amount from 50% of debt due, held, is limited to reducing the pre-deposit to 25% thereof. The pre-deposit cannot under any circumstances be reduced below 25% of the debt due. Read more »

Cheque Law In Cash Crisis: How P.C. Hari Rewrites Enforceability At The Cost Of Commercial Certainty

Anup Koushik Karavadi and Kanishk Tiwari Introduction The decision of the Kerala High Court in P.C. Hari v. Shine Varghese1 presents a significant yet contentious development in the law governing dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. While the Court endeavours to harmonize the NI Read more »

Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others; 2009 (2) SCC 570

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that It is the Duty of the Disciplinary Authority to record reasons. The orders of disciplinary authority and appellate authority entails civil consequences. Hence, the orders must be based on recorded reasons. Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.