The Bombay High Court on Thursday directed the deputy collector of Mumbai suburban district to consider afresh a citizenship application filed by a woman who has lived for around 60 years in India.
The court directed that the matter be decided within three weeks and said that the authority concerned should not be influenced by a December 31, 2019, order of the deputy collector that refused her relief.
Now nearly 70 years old, Ila Jatin Popat approached the court in 2023 seeking a direction for authorities to grant her Indian citizenship as she has been married to an Indian for the past 45 years and her children as well as grandchildren are Indian citizens.
The woman was born at Kamuli in Uganda in 1955 to Indian-origin parents holding British passports. She came to India on her mother’s passport along with her younger brother in February 1966 and has since been residing in the country but did not have any valid documents. She married an Indian citizen in 1977. She has two children who were born in India and possess Indian passports.
A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela K Gokhale on April 3 passed an order on Popat’s plea filed against the 2019 order, which held that she did not fulfil conditions of the Indian Citizenship Act 1955.
The deputy collector had observed that as per available information on the records of the Mumbai police, she was a “stateless national” by birth and did not have any valid passport or visa, adding that despite this, she had claimed her visa was valid up to March 21, 2019.
As per her counsel Sumedh Ruikar, Popat had applied for an Indian passport in April 1997 but there was no response from authorities. She again applied in May 2006 and was asked to submit her travel documents but did not get any response.
Story continues below this ad
The third application was made in May 2012, after which she was advised to first register herself as an Indian citizen, without which her request for passport will not be considered. She made an online application in March 2019 seeking citizenship. However, she did not get a relief, with the impugned order stating that she had mentioned incorrect details regarding the validity of her visa.
Ruikar argued that she was not a stateless national as she had entered India when she was a 10-year-old minor along with her mother and that her entry in India was legal and permitted by Indian authorities.
Government Pleader Purnima H Kantharia submitted that Popat cannot be termed as an “illegal migrant”.
After hearing the parties, the bench observed that admittedly Popat was “not an illegal migrant” and that “she had entered India as a minor on valid documents of her mother, hence her stay in India is not illegal”.
Story continues below this ad
“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 bench observed.
Seeking a decision on her application, the high court posted further hearing to April 29.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd