Woman who came from Uganda as a kid in 1966 on parents�?valid papers can’t be tagged illegal immigrant: Bombay HC

Swati Deshpande / TNN / Updated: Apr 7, 2025, 09:51 IST

Text Size

Small
Medium
Large

The Bombay High Court has directed the suburban district deputy collector to reconsider a woman's citizenship application. Ila Popat, who entered India legally as a child in 1966, faced a 2019 denial based on inaccuracies in her application. The court emphasized her entry was not illegal.

Woman who came from Uganda as a kid in 1966 on parents�?valid papers can’t be tagged illegal immigrant: Bombay HC

Bombay High Court

MUMBAI: Holding that her entry to India in 1966 from Uganda as a 10-year-old with her parents who held valid documents cannot be termed illegal, Bombay high court directed the suburban district deputy collector to consider afresh the woman's application for citizenship.
The woman, Ila Popat, a senior citizen, challenged a Dec 2019 order by the suburban collector in 2023, denying her citizenship. Her lawyers, Sumedh Ruikar and Aditya Chitale, argued that she was born in Sept 1955 in Kamuli, Uganda. Her parents held British passports. She and her sibling accompanied their parents to India in Feb 1966 when she was 10. She married an Indian.
The collector observed that she was a stateless national by birth and held no passport or visa, but in her application, she said she had a valid visa till March 2019.
It was a "bona fide mistake'' in the application, said her lawyers, arguing that she was not stateless, as her entry to India was legal as a minor. Ajinkya Jaibhye, lawyer for the Regional Passport Office, said it was only because she gave incorrect details that the collector had denied her citizenship plea.

Government pleader Purnima Kantharia cited a letter by Ugandan authorities calling on Popat to complete formalities to be declared a Ugandan citizen. She failed to act. Kantharia, however, "fairly conceded," HC noted that the woman cannot be termed an ‘illegal migrant'.
‘Illegal migrant' as defined in Section 2(b) means a foreigner who has entered into India without a valid passport or other travel documents or with a valid passport and the travel documents, but remains in India beyond the permitted period of time.
"Petitioner is not an ‘illegal migrant'. She has entered India as a minor, on valid documents of her mother and hence, her stay in India is not illegal," the HC division bench of justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale said in its Apr 3 order.
HC said, "Ideally," she "ought to have taken steps to regularise her continued stay in India. Be that as it may, in the absence of any illegal act committed by the petitioner; her husband and children holding valid Indian passports; the petitioner herself now being a senior citizen having resided in India for the past 60 years, the petitioner cannot be rendered stateless."
The high court adjourned the matter to April 29 and directed that her citizenship plea be decided afresh in three weeks, uninfluenced by its previous 2019 order.
Mumbai: Holding that her entry to India in 1966 from Uganda as a 10-year-old with her parents who held valid documents cannot be termed illegal, Bombay high court directed the suburban district deputy collector to consider afresh the woman's application for citizenship.
The woman, Ila Popat, a senior citizen, challenged a Dec 2019 order by the suburban collector in 2023, denying her citizenship. Her lawyers, Sumedh Ruikar and Aditya Chitale, argued that she was born in Sept 1955 in Kamuli, Uganda. Her parents held British passports. She and her sibling accompanied their parents to India in Feb 1966 when she was 10. She married an Indian.
The collector observed that she was a stateless national by birth and held no passport or visa, but in her application, she said she had a valid visa till March 2019.
It was a "bona fide mistake'' in the application, said her lawyers, arguing that she was not stateless, as her entry to India was legal as a minor. Ajinkya Jaibhye, lawyer for the Regional Passport Office, said it was only because she gave incorrect details that the collector had denied her citizenship plea.
Government pleader Purnima Kantharia cited a letter by Ugandan authorities calling on Popat to complete formalities to be declared a Ugandan citizen. She failed to act. Kantharia, however, "fairly conceded," HC noted that the woman cannot be termed an ‘illegal migrant'.
‘Illegal migrant' as defined in Section 2(b) means a foreigner who has entered into India without a valid passport or other travel documents or with a valid passport and the travel documents, but remains in India beyond the permitted period of time.
"Petitioner is not an ‘illegal migrant'. She has entered India as a minor, on valid documents of her mother and hence, her stay in India is not illegal," the HC division bench of justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale said in its Apr 3 order.
HC said, "Ideally," she "ought to have taken steps to regularise her continued stay in India. Be that as it may, in the absence of any illegal act committed by the petitioner; her husband and children holding valid Indian passports; the petitioner herself now being a senior citizen having resided in India for the past 60 years, the petitioner cannot be rendered stateless."
The high court adjourned the matter to April 29 and directed that her citizenship plea be decided afresh in three weeks, uninfluenced by its previous 2019 order.

About the Author

Swati Deshpande

Swati Deshpande is Senior editor at The Times of India, Mumbai, where she has been covering courts for over a decade. She is passionate about law and works towards enlightening people about their statutory, legal and fundamental rights. She makes it her job to decipher for the public the truth, be it in an intricate civil dispute or in a gruesome criminal case.

End of Article