Birth Outside Kerala Not Bar To Domicile Certificate If Applicant Permanent Resident Of State: High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently (January 19) held that a person born outside the State cannot be denied a domicile certificate if their permanent residence and social belongingness are demonstrably in Kerala.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation in a plea challenging rejection of Petitioner's application for issuance of domicile certificate on the ground that he and his parents were born and brought up in Kolkata.

The petitioner was born at Kolkata in 2006 but in 2007 his parents shifted to Kozhikode and permanently settled in their ancestral house there. Although the paternal grandfather of the petitioner belonged to Kozhikode, his parents were both born and brought up in Kolkata.

The petitioner submitted that even though he was born in Kolkata, he has shifted his residence to Kerala and has been permanently residing in Kozhikode with his schooling done in the State.

When the petitioner applied for a domicile certificate, it was rejected stating that he was born and brought up in Kolkata.

The government pleader submitted that the Village Officer, after conducting an enquiry recommended the issuance of the Domicile Certificate to the petitioner noting that the petitioner has completed his studies in Kerala and the address in his Aadhaar Card is his residence at Kozhikkode.

It was also submitted that as per the Kerala Land Revenue Manual, the Domicile Certificate can be issued only if the applicant was born and brought up in Kerala and hence the Tahsildar rejected the application initially.

The Court thus conducted a detailed examination of the concept of domicile, drawing a clear distinction between nativity and domicile in law. The Court emphasised that domicile is a legal concept consisting of domicile of origin and domicile of choice, and under Indian constitutional law, there is only one domicile, domicile in India, not in individual States.

“Generally, domicile under law is fixed to a country and not to any region inside a country like a State. The domicile of a person does not undergo a change merely because he shifts his residence inside the same country,” Court observed.

The Court further noted that the domicile of origin attached to an individual by birth while the domicile of choice is acquired by residence in a territory, with the intention to reside there permanently or indefinitely.

“The area of domicile, whether it be domicile of origin or domicile of choice, is the country which has the distinctive legal system and not merely the particular place in the country where the individual resides” Court noted.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents including D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1955 SC 334] and Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India[(1984) 3 SCC 654], the Court reiterated that the idea of a State domicile has no technical legal foundation.

The Court noted that when the State authorities use the term “domicile certificate”, they do so in a popular and administrative sense, to indicate permanent residence and intention to reside indefinitely, rather than domicile in its strict private-law meaning.

The Court also observed the Kerala Land Revenue Manual, holding that it is not a statute but a set of administrative guidelines.

“The aforesaid Manual is not a statute or a legal document, but is only a set of guidelines that can guide the Officers in the discharge of their multifarious duties. It is elementary that the guidelines cannot contradict the law,” Court noted.

While Clause 227 of the Manual equates domicile certificates with nativity certificates, the Court held that this equivalence cannot override the broader legal understanding of domicile.

The Court noted that the Clause 226 of the Manual states that a Nativity Certificate can be issued not only to persons born in Kerala but also to persons born outside Kerala, if both the parents were born in Kerala or at least one of the parent was born and brought up in Kerala while the other was born and brought up in another State.

Reliance was placed on Vincy Dinakaran v State of Kerala [2021 (4) KLT 752], to observe that Clause 226 can be interpreted to focus on social belongingness rather than mere place of birth.

The Court thus held that social belongingness was reflected through upbringing, education, family residence, and intention to remain and thus must guide the determination of permanent residence.

The Court found that though born in Kolkata, the petitioner had completed his entire schooling in Kerala, possessed Aadhaar and ration cards showing a Kerala address, and had no demonstrable intention to reside outside the State. Denial of a domicile certificate in such circumstances, the Court held, would amount to absolute injustice.

It thus directed the Tahsildar to issue the domicile certificate as sought by the petitioner and disposed of the petition.

Case Title: Sohan V M v State of Kerala and Anr

Case No: WP(C) 1781/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 42

Counsel for Petitioner: Adithya Rajeev, S Parvathi

Counsel for Respondents: Amminikutty K (Sr. GP)