The question of whether citizens of foreign origin can hold political posts in India has often sparked legal and political debates. While several democracies like the United States, Mexico, Argentina, and the Philippines explicitly bar individuals who are not natural-born citizens from holding high constitutional offices such as that of the President, India's Constitution does not include such a categorical restriction. This raises important questions about the eligibility criteria for political office in India, the distinction between natural-born and naturalized citizens, and the role of the judiciary and legislature in framing policies related to citizenship.

• Constitutional Provisions on Citizenship:
• Part II of the Constitution of India (Articles 5 to 11) deals with citizenship. These articles primarily focus on determining who became citizens of India at the commencement of the Constitution (January 26, 1950).
• Article 5: Defines citizenship by domicile, birth, or residency at the time of commencement.
• Articles 6 and 7: Address the citizenship of those who migrated to and from Pakistan around the time of partition.
• Article 8: Pertains to the rights of persons of Indian origin residing outside India.
• Article 9: States that a person who voluntarily acquires the citizenship of a foreign state shall cease to be a citizen of India.
• Article 10: Ensures the continuance of citizenship subject to laws made by Parliament.
• Article 11: Empowers the Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.
   
• Important Notes:
  • The Constitution does not explicitly define who is eligible to hold various political offices based on their mode of acquiring citizenship (by birth, descent, registration, or naturalization).
  • This silence has been a subject of interpretation and legal debate.
  • The Constitution of India makes no distinction between natural-born and naturalized citizens when it comes to eligibility for political offices, except in cases where the Constitution explicitly lays down qualifications.
     
• Article 84: Lays down the qualifications for membership of Parliament:
  • A citizen of India.
  • Not less than 30 years of age (for the Rajya Sabha) or 25 years (for the Lok Sabha).
  • Possessing such other qualifications as may be prescribed by law.
     
• Article 58: Outlines the qualifications for the office of the President:
  • Must be a citizen of India.
  • Must have completed 35 years of age.
  • Must be qualified for election as a member of the House of the People.

Again, it does not specify whether the citizen should be natural-born or naturalized.

In contrast, Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution requires the President to be a "natural born Citizen," thus excluding naturalized citizens from holding the highest office in the land.

Furthermore, the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution is relevant to this discussion. Any law seeking to differentiate between citizens based on their mode of acquiring citizenship for the purpose of holding political office would need to be justified on the grounds of reasonable classification, with a clear and intelligible differentia that bears a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Simply being a naturalized citizen, without any further compelling reasons related to national security or public interest, might face scrutiny under the equality provisions if used as a blanket disqualification.

Judicial Interpretation - R. Venkateshwara Rao v. Union of India (AIR 1999 A.P. 328):

This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 5(1)(c) and 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provide for citizenship by registration (including marriage to an Indian citizen) and naturalization. The petitioner sought a declaration that no person of foreign origin, including Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (who acquired Indian citizenship by registration after marrying the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi), is competent or eligible to become a Member of either House of Parliament, the Prime Minister of India, or the President of India.

The petitioner argued that the scheme of the Indian Constitution does not envisage the conferment of citizenship on foreigners for holding high political offices and that only a citizen by birth can have a true sense of patriotism. It was also contended that allowing a person of foreign origin to become the Prime Minister would be detrimental to national security due to their potential allegiance to another country and their access to sensitive information.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutional validity of the relevant sections of the Citizenship Act. The Court observed that each country frames its own Constitution and laws regarding citizenship and eligibility for political office, and comparisons with other countries might not be directly applicable. The Court emphasized that it is for the Parliament to formulate the legislative policy on citizenship and eligibility for holding political posts, and the Courts should not interfere with this domain unless a law is clearly unconstitutional.

The High Court reasoned that Article 11 of the Constitution explicitly empowers the Parliament to make laws regarding citizenship. The Citizenship Act, 1955, enacted under this power, provides for acquiring citizenship through registration and naturalization without any inherent bar on holding political offices. The Court found no constitutional provision that explicitly prohibits a naturalized citizen from becoming a Member of Parliament, Prime Minister, or President.

Regarding the argument about national security and divided loyalty, the Court noted that the process of registration and naturalization under the Citizenship Act involves an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India and requires the applicant to renounce their previous citizenship (in the case of naturalization). These safeguards are deemed sufficient by the Parliament. The Court refrained from entering into the policy domain of whether additional restrictions should be imposed, stating that it is a matter for legislative consideration.

Implications and Current Legal Position:

• The judgment in R. Venkateshwara Rao v. Union of India reinforces that a person who has acquired Indian citizenship through registration or naturalization is not constitutionally barred from holding high political offices, including that of the President and the Prime Minister.
• The eligibility criteria for these posts are laid down in the Constitution (e.g., age, qualifications for being a Member of Parliament) and do not differentiate based on the mode of acquiring citizenship.
• Article 84 of the Constitution specifies qualifications for membership of Parliament: being a citizen of India, minimum age, and other qualifications prescribed by Parliament.
• Article 58 specifies qualifications for election as President: Indian citizenship, minimum age of 35 years, and eligibility to be a member of the House of the People.
• Neither article distinguishes between citizens by birth and naturalized citizens.
• As per current law, a naturalized citizen who meets the prescribed qualifications is eligible to hold high political offices.
• The judiciary has upheld Parliament's prerogative to define citizenship and associated rights within the constitutional framework.
   

The Citizenship Act, 1955:

• Enacted under Article 11 of the Constitution to regulate acquisition of Indian citizenship post-1950 through various means:
  • Section 3 – Citizenship by Birth: Born in India on or after Jan 26, 1950, with certain exceptions.
  • Section 4 – Citizenship by Descent: Born outside India on or after Jan 26, 1950, to Indian parents.
  • Section 5 – Citizenship by Registration: Persons of Indian origin, spouses of Indian citizens, and minor children may be registered as citizens.
  • Section 6 – Citizenship by Naturalization: Foreigners meeting specified conditions may be granted Indian citizenship.
  • Section 7 – Incorporation of Territory: Persons connected with newly added territories may be declared citizens.
• The Act does not restrict naturalized citizens from holding high political offices, unlike some foreign constitutions.
   

Parliamentary Role and Legislative Discretion:

• The Supreme Court upholds legislative supremacy in policy-making. Judiciary interprets laws but does not legislate.
• If restrictions on naturalized citizens holding office are deemed necessary, it is for Parliament to legislate.
• Any such law must withstand the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 and avoid being discriminatory.
   

Comparative Constitutional Practice:

• United States: Article II, Section 1 – Only "natural born" citizens are eligible for the presidency.
• Mexico: Article 91 – President must be a "Mexican citizen by birth" and have resided for 20 years.
• Argentina: Article 89 – President or Vice-President must be born in Argentina or be the child of a native citizen if born abroad.
• Philippines: Article VII, Section 2 – President and Vice-President must be "natural-born Filipino citizens". Article VI, Section 6 sets similar rules for legislators.

These examples illustrate a contrasting approach where a strong emphasis is placed on birthright citizenship for holding the highest executive and legislative positions. The rationale often cited for such restrictions includes concerns about undivided loyalty and a deep-rooted connection to the nation's history and ethos.

Potential Debates:
It is important to acknowledge that while the current legal framework does not bar naturalized citizens, the issue of their eligibility for the highest political offices has been a subject of public and political discourse in India from time to time. Concerns regarding national allegiance, potential conflicts of interest, and the symbolic importance of these offices have been raised. However, as the law stands, these concerns have not translated into explicit legal restrictions at the constitutional or statutory level. Any future changes in this regard would necessitate a broad political consensus and legislative action by the Parliament, keeping in view the fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Indian legal framework currently does not prohibit naturalized citizens from holding political posts, including the office of President or membership in Parliament. This inclusive stance is consistent with the broader egalitarian principles of the Constitution, although it contrasts with the practices of many other nations. The matter, however, remains open to legislative change. If the Parliament believes that political posts should be reserved exclusively for natural-born citizens, it must spell this out through statutory amendments. Until such time, the Courts will continue to defer to the legislative intent, as upheld in R. Venkateshwara Rao v. Union of India.

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