Article 9 of The Constitution of India

Article 9 of Indian Constitution says that a person who voluntarily acquires citizenship of any other country is no longer an Indian citizen. It is a punishable offence if the person fails to surrender the passport. The Article 9 of the Indian Constitution also states that it is no longer an Indian citizen who willingly acquires citizenship from any other nation. A person must also surrender his / her Indian passport and voter card according to the Passports Act, and other Indian ID cards must not be used after acquiring citizenship from another country. Unless the person refuses to surrender the passport it is a criminal offence. People residing on India’s territory as of 26 November 1949 automatically became Indian citizens through the implementation of the relevant provisions of the Indian Constitution which came into force on 26 January 1950. The Indian Constitution also provided for citizenship of refugees from the Pakistani territory that had been part of India until partitioning.Indians born outside India on or after 26 January 1950 but before 10 December 1992 are Indian citizens by descent if their father was an Indian citizen at the time of their birth.
Indians born outside India on or after 10 December 1992 are considered Indian citizens if at the time of their birth either of their parents is Indian national.
From 3 December 2004 onwards, persons born outside India shall not be regarded as Indian citizens unless their birth is registered with an Indian diplomatic mission within one year of their birth date. In certain cases, verification may be made after one year with the Central Government’s permission. The application for registration of a birth of a child must be made to an Indian diplomatic mission and must be accompanied by a formal undertaking from the child’s parents that he or she does not hold another country’s passport. Indian citizenship by citizenship may be acquired by a foreigner who has been ordinarily resident in India for 12 years (throughout the 12-month period immediately preceding the application date and for 11 years in the aggregate of 14 years preceding the 12-month period) and other conditions as defined for in Section 6(1) of the Citizenship Act , 1955.
Due to the requirements for the loss of Indian nationality when an Indian national naturalizes in another country and the requirement to renounce existing citizenships when naturalizing in India, it is generally difficult to have dual citizenship of India and another country. There are still some ways that a person may have dual citizenship of India and another country, including:

•During the work of their parents in India, kids of foreign officials born in India are also provided dual citizenship.
•Though acquiring a passport from the other country of citizenship will normally terminate Indian citizenship, a minor child of Indian origin may hold dual citizenship of India and another nation.
Indian national visa requirements are administrative entry restrictions imposed on Indian citizens by the authorities of other states. As of 13 February 2018, Indian people had visa-free access to 56 countries and territories on arrival, ranking Indian passport 81st in terms of free movement .Renunciation is dealt with in section 8 of the 1955 Citizenship Act. When an person makes a declaration that Indian citizenship is renounced, he / she loses Indian citizenship. Additionally, any of that person’s minor children also lose Indian citizenship from the date of the renunciation. Once the child reaches 18 years of age he or she has the right to regain his or her Indian citizenship. The provisions for making a declaration of resignation under Indian Citizenship Law require the person making the declaration to be “full-age and fit.” Section 9(1) of the Act specifies that any Indian citizen who acquires citizenship of another country by naturalization or registration shall cease to be a citizen of India. The termination provision differs notably from the renunciation provision because it applies to “any Indian citizen” and is not restricted to adults.
Therefore, Indian children often immediately lose their right to Indian citizenship if they obtain a citizenship of another country through, for example, naturalization or registration at some time after birth — even if the acquisition of another citizenship was made as a result of actions by the parents of the child.
The Central Government may, on an application, register as a citizen of India under section 5 of the Citizenship Act 1955 any person (not being an illegal migrant) if s/he belongs to any of the following categories:
•A person of Indian origin who is normally resident in India for seven years before making a request under section 5(1)(a) (throughout the span of twelve months immediately before making a request and six years in the aggregate in the eight years preceding the twelve months).
•A person of Indian origin who is ordinarily resident in any country or place outside undivided India.
•A person who is married to a citizen of india and who is domiciled in India for 7 years before submitting for enrolment.
.A person of full age and ability who was a previous citizen of indian history, or one of his parents, and who resided throughout India for one year immediately before applying for registration;
•A full-age and capable person who has been registered as an Indian Overseas citizen for five years and who has been living in India for one year before filing for registration.

A following case study is therefore being discussed as follows:
Calcutta High Court
State Of West Bengal
versus
Brindaban Chandra Pramanik And … on 24 July, 1956
Equivalent citations: AIR 1957 Cal 44, 61 CWN 27
Author: P Mookerjee
Bench: P Mookerjee, Sen
JUDGMENT P.N. Mookerjee, J.
To the demand for compensation of the respondents (Rs. 7,253/10/-) for a thousand paddy maunds and twenty paddy seers, requested in 1944 by the then Province of Bengal under Rule 75A of the Protection of India Rules, three legal defenses were presented by the West Bengal Province, which was made the sole defendant in the suit brought in December 1948. In the present appeal the merits of these defences must be considered. 1. To the appeal for restitution of the respondents (Rs. 7,253/10/-) for a thousand paddy maunds and twenty paddy seers, submitted in 1944 by the then Province of Bengal under Rule 75A of the Laws of Security of India, the West Bengal Province offered three legal defenses, and became the sole defendant in the suit brought in December 1948. The merits of those defences must be considered in the present appeal.
The paddy requisition has been accepted. Its reception or distribution has also been reported to the competent authority of the then Province of Bengal. It was further acknowledged that liability for the demanded paddy had been decided at Rs. 7/4/- per maund in compliance with Clause 4 of Rule 75A of the Protection of India Law, which amounted to the amount claimed by the plaintiffs. Obviously, the argument was for damages or restitution under the common law for an actionable error of the form of torture which, as the statute, spoke of, may well have been an offence, claiming to be performed under s. 15 of the Statute, and I do not believe that anything else was meant by their Lordships at p. 73 of the AIR Report, — there was some scope for a dispute under Article 2, the Limitation Act, and the Privy Council therefore remitted the case for a decision on this point.
(Final Order of the Division Bench dated 24-7-1956.) P. N. Mookerjee J.
In this appeal, which was originally heard by this Bench, there was a difference of opinion between my learned brother and myself on the question of the interpretation of Articles 9 and 10 of the 1947 Indian Independence Order (Rights, Property and Liabilities) and on the applicability to the present case of one or the other of those provisions. J. Lahiri He has now offered his opinion on the substantive distinction, namely whether Article 9 or Article 10 should refer to this case and has, in turn, articulated the view that the present situation comes under the scope of Article 10(2)(b) of the 1947 Order on Indian Independence (Rights, Properties and Liabilities). Consequently, in compliance with majority opinion, as provided by Section 98, Civil P. C. And CL 36, Letters Patent, the appeal must now be rejected and, accordingly, rejected.
In view of the cost order already issued by Lahiri J., which stands, in this appeal we do not propose to make any further cost order. Under Section 82, P.C. Subject to the other provisions of this act, a term of two months from that date shall be extended to the appellant State for enforcement of the decrees (including costs) to the respondents.