"She Converted To Islam & Applied For Bangladeshi Citizenship Voluntarily": Madras HC Dismisses Father's Plea Against Daughter Renouncing Indian Citizenship

Justice Abdul Quddhose was considering a petition filed by a father who contended that his daughter, who was presently residing in Bangladesh with her husband, was a victim of radicalization, undue influence, coercion, abduction, and captivity violating all her rights and human dignity.

He submitted that his daughter's abduction was being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (third respondent) and that any issuance of a certificate of renunciation would render the investigation redundant. He also submitted that such issuance would irretrievably damage the chances of her retrieval.

The petitioner also emphasized that the power conferred under the Citizenship Act and Rules had to be exercised after taking into consideration all the relevant materials and orders should not be passed in a mechanical manner. The High Commissioner of India at Bangladesh (fourth respondent) should consider whether the declaration was made voluntarily or not. He submitted that his daughter's application seeking citizenship of Bangladesh was made under threat, coercion and undue influence and thus, should not be considered.

He further submitted that since the issuance of any certificate would impact his daughter's rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, court intervention was necessary. He also contended that the issuance of a certificate would also impact his and his wife's right as the well-being of their daughter was intrinsic to their life and dignity.

The court noted that a Habeas Corpus petition was also moved by the petitioner seeking deportation of his daughter from Bangladesh to India. The said petition was closed after the court recorded the statement of Harshita that she converted to Islam and applied for Bangladesh citizenship on her own volition.

The court also noted that the National Investigation Agency had submitted a closure report in the Special Court for NIA cases with respect to the complaint lodged by the petitioner.

In view of the same, the court opined that the question of granting relief in favor of the petitioner as sought for in the writ petition will not arise and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Vinith Baid v. Union of India

Case No: W.P.No.14971 of 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 358

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.S.P.Aarthi, Central Govt Standing Counsel (R1, R4), Mr.S.Thiruvengadam (R2), Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Spl. P.P (R3), Mr.T.Seenivasan, Spl. G.P (R5), Mr.T.Mohan, M/s.Akshaya Sagarika (R6)