In a significant judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court on April 3, 2025, a ray of hope has been cast for individuals who have spent the majority of their lives in India after arriving as minors with valid parental documentation. The court unequivocally ruled that Ila Popat, a senior citizen who entered India from Uganda as a 10-year-old in 1966 alongside her parents holding British passports, cannot be classified as an "illegal migrant."

This landmark decision overturned a 2019 order by the suburban district deputy collector that had denied her citizenship application. The High Court bench, comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale, firmly directed the collector to reconsider her application, emphasizing the legality of her initial entry and the complexities inherent in applying citizenship laws to historical migration cases involving minors. This case underscores the critical need for a nuanced understanding of India's citizenship framework, particularly when dealing with individuals who have established deep roots in the country over decades.

Historical and Legal Context - The Citizenship Act, 1955:

India's citizenship framework is governed by the Citizenship Act, 1955, which lays down the legal pathways for acquiring, determining, and terminating Indian citizenship.

The Act originally provided five modes of acquiring citizenship:

• By Birth (Section 3)
• By Descent (Section 4)
• By Registration (Section 5)
• By Naturalization (Section 6)
• By Incorporation of Territory (Section 7)

At the time Ila Popat entered India in 1966, these provisions were operative, and significant emphasis was placed on lawful entry, duration of stay, and intention to reside permanently. Importantly, the 1986 and 2003 amendments to the Act introduced the concept of "illegal migrant" - defined as a person who entered India without valid travel documents or overstayed beyond the permitted period. However, this definition was not applicable in the same sense during 1966, when Popat arrived.

Case Details and Observations:

According to Popat's legal counsel, she was born in September 1955 in Kamuli, Uganda. Her parents held British passports, a common colonial legacy in the East African region. She and her sibling migrated with their parents to India in February 1966, when she was ten years old. The suburban collector, while rejecting her application in December 2019, argued that she was a stateless person, as she held no valid passport or visa at the time of application. However, in her submission, Popat stated that she had held a valid visa till March 2019 - a claim dismissed by the collector, who also cited "incorrect details" in the application.

Court's Reasoning and Key Legal Takeaways:

• Entry as a Minor with Valid Parental Documents: The court clarified that Popat had entered India as a minor, accompanying her parents who were in possession of valid documentation. As per established principles of immigration law, minors are not held independently responsible for documentation when they are under the guardianship of lawful entrants.
• No 'Mens Rea' or Malafide Intent: The court accepted the explanation that any errors in her application were due to a "bona fide mistake" and not an attempt to mislead authorities.
• No Violation of Visa Conditions or Laws: There was no evidence that Popat had violated any visa norms or Indian laws. Her prolonged stay in India, though not always formally regularized, was never clandestine or illegal in nature.
• Interpretation of 'Illegal Migrant': The court was careful to assert that Popat does not fall under the category of 'illegal migrant', especially because the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, which brought in the definition of "illegal migrant", did not apply retroactively to those who entered lawfully in earlier decades.

"Petitioner is not an 'illegal migrant'. She entered India as a minor, on valid documents of her mother and her stay in India is not illegal," the court declared.
 

Implications of the Ruling:

This decision sets a precedent for how citizenship applications, especially those involving historical migration, must be approached with both legal rigor and humanitarian sensitivity. The judgment reaffirms that:

• Minors cannot be criminalized for the circumstances of their entry.
• Historical context matters - particularly for migrants from post-colonial nations like Uganda who may have held British passports.
• Errors in documentation should be distinguished from deliberate violations.
• Citizenship law must be interpreted harmoniously with constitutional values, including the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
   

Lessons and the Way Forward:

This case underscores the need for administrative discretion to be exercised judiciously and with empathy, especially when dealing with long-term residents of Indian origin who have contributed to Indian society. It also raises broader questions:

• Should India have a more streamlined mechanism for granting citizenship to those who have lived peacefully and lawfully for decades?
• How can the legal framework be strengthened to prevent bureaucratic overreach or technical errors from denying individuals their rightful status?

The case of Ila Popat reminds us that citizenship is not just a legal identity, but a human story - often involving migration, displacement, and hope. The Bombay High Court's ruling reaffirms that laws must serve justice, not thwart it.

Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court's judgment in the case of Ila Popat is a welcome and crucial affirmation of the rights of individuals who have made India their home after arriving as minors with legal parental documentation. It serves as a powerful reminder that the application of citizenship laws must be grounded in principles of justice, fairness, and a consideration of the unique circumstances of each case.

By directing the suburban district deputy collector to reconsider Ila Popat's application, the court has paved the way for a just resolution, upholding the spirit of the law and recognizing the profound human implications of citizenship decisions. This case sets an important precedent for future cases involving long-term residents who entered India as minors, advocating for a more compassionate and historically informed interpretation of citizenship regulations.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565