The Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) has held that when an authority is required to issue a “Domicile Certificate” to an Indian citizen for use within India, the term “domicile” should not be interpreted in its strict legal sense (domicile of origin/birthplace). Instead, it must be understood in its popular sense as referring to a person’s permanent residence.
The determination of such permanent residence should be based on factors demonstrating the person’s “social belongingness” to the State, such as their place of upbringing, education, and other long-term ties, rather than merely their place of birth, explained the Court, while holding that denying the Domicile Certificate to the petitioner would be an “absolute injustice”.
Based on his entire schooling, family residence, and ancestral roots in Kerala, the Court concluded that the petitioner must be regarded as a person belonging to the State of Kerala. Accordingly, the Court directed the second respondent (the Tahsildar, Koyilandy Taluk) to issue the Domicile Certificate to the petitioner forthwith, within a maximum period of two days from the receipt of a copy of the judgment.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas first noted that the finding in the rejection order that the petitioner was “brought up in Kolkata” was factually incorrect. The documentary evidence overwhelmingly proved that he was brought up entirely in Kerala.
The Bench observed that the issuance of a Domicile Certificate is guided by Clauses 226 and 227 of the Kerala Land Revenue Manual, which is not a statute but a set of guidelines that cannot contradict the law. While Clause 227 states a Domicile Certificate is for a person born and residing in Kerala, the Bench found this to be a narrow interpretation.
The Bench emphasised that the relevant factor in determining if a person belongs to a state is their “social belongingness”, which is ascertained by whether the person has socially adapted to the prevailing norms and values of the State, with the place of upbringing and education being a key criterion.
Lastly, explaining that the concept of a separate “State domicile” is not legally tenable as India has a single citizenship and a unified legal system, the Bench deduced that when recruitment rules require a “Domicile Certificate”, the term is used in a popular sense to mean a certificate of “permanent residence” and is intended to convey the “idea of intention to reside permanently or indefinitely” in a place.
Briefly, the petitioner was born in Kolkata in 2006, and both his parents were also born and brought up in Kolkata, West Bengal. His paternal grandfather, however, belonged to Kozhikode District in Kerala. In 2007, the petitioner’s parents relocated to Kozhikode and permanently settled in their ancestral house in Naduvannur Village. The petitioner completed his entire schooling in Kerala.
The petitioner possesses a Secondary School Leaving Certificate, a Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate, and an Aadhar Card issued in 2013, all of which record his permanent residence in Kozhikode. His mother’s ration card and his late father’s death certificate also show the family’s permanent address in Naduvannur, Kerala.
However, when the petitioner required a Domicile Certificate to process his application for the post of Agniveer in the Indian Army, his application was rejected by the Tahsildar on the grounds that he was born and brought up in Kolkata. This was despite a report from the Village Officer which, after an enquiry, recommended the issuance of the certificate.
Appearances:
Advocates Adithya Rajeev and S. Parvathi, for the Petitioner
Advocate Amminikutty. K, for the Respondent
