Originally Posted by
B747-437B
In practical terms, the test applied is probably more one of "does not continue to exercise the rights of foreign citizenship" rather than "renunciation of foreign citizenship".
If you continue to hold a passport from a foreign country at the age of 18 years 6 months, or reside in a foreign country as a non-alien, or vote in foreign elections, etc... then it can be reasonably argued that one has not renounced foreign citizenship. The burden will be on the Government of India to demonstrate that one has NOT renounced foreign citizenship if one were to make a declaration that one has indeed done so.
Sure. But what about a person who has never held a foreign passport, never voted in foreign elections nor resided in a foreign country from early childhood - and who has ignored the existence of a foreign citizenship aged 18 years to 18 years 6 months? If that person claims to have "renounced" the foreign citizenship, could the government simply challenge him to specify the time and manner of so doing, and try him for perjury?
Originally Posted by
B747-437B
The law really isn't that complex if you consider its underlying concept - viz. one can only hold allegiance to a single master at any time. All the laws written around it simply seek to uphold this principle. The only people who complain about it are those who are unwilling to accept the concept above.
The concept is simple. The procedural logic of winding up the competing claims of citizenship is complex.