Renunciation of former nationality is a mandatory precondition for naturalisation as a Sikkim Subject by domicile.

The Petitioner, a descendant of the late Padam Bahadur Bhujel, challenged the rejection of his application for a Citizenship Certificate and the inclusion of his name in the Sikkim Subject Register

The Petitioner’s predecessor died in 2016 without ever applying for naturalization as a Sikkim Subject under the Sikkim Subjects Regulation, 1961

The Petitioner sought inclusion based on the Sikkim (Citizenship) Amendment Order, 1989, which allowed for the rectification of "genuine omissions" of persons eligible under the 1961 Regulation

Evidence indicated that Padam Bahadur Bhujel resided in West Bengal before 1952 and had not renounced his former nationality

1. Whether the descendants of an individual who was otherwise eligible for naturalization under the Sikkim Subjects Regulation, 1961, can claim inclusion in the Sikkim Subject Register if the predecessor failed to renounce their former nationality during their lifetime?

2. Whether the Sikkim (Citizenship) Amendment Order, 1989, created new substantive rights or dispensed with the mandatory requirements of the 1961 Regulation?

Sikkim Subjects Regulation, 1961, specifically Regulation 3, which defines eligibility based on birth or 15 years of residence/domicile

Regulation 8 of the Sikkim Subjects Regulation, 1961, which mandates that a person seeking naturalization must take an oath of allegiance and renounce their former nationality

Sikkim (Citizenship) Order, 1975, and the Sikkim (Citizenship) Amendment Order, 1989, noting that while the 1989 Order enlarged the category of applicants to include natural descendants to rectify "genuine omissions," it did not dilute the substantive conditions of the original 1961 Regulation

The court reasoned that the right to naturalization under Regulation 8 of the 1961 Regulation was a "personal choice" available exclusively to the Petitioner's predecessor

Since Padam Bahadur Bhujel was not born in Sikkim and his claim rested solely on domicile, the act of renouncing his former nationality was a mandatory condition precedent for eligibility

The court observed that the 1989 Amendment Order was intended only to rectify omissions of those already eligible; it did not create "new substantive rights" or waive the requirement of renunciation

Because the predecessor never exercised the option to renounce his nationality, he never achieved the status of a Sikkim Subject, and consequently, no derivative right could pass to his descendants

The court found no evidence that the predecessor was born in Sikkim or had renounced his former nationality

Accordingly, the High Court held the petition to be devoid of merit and dismissed the Writ Petition