Cidadania por descendência — pai (pré-1992)

Eligibility requires: (1) birth OUTSIDE India (s4(1) chapeau — the jus-sanguinis complement to s3); (2) date of birth on or after 26 January 1950 and before 10 December 1992; and (3) the FATHER being a citizen of India 'at the time of his birth' (s4(1)(a)). The mother could not transmit descent citizenship in this era — a hard limit of the pre-1992 patrilineal rule. Two overlays condition the claim. The FIRST PROVISO: if the father was a citizen 'by descent only', the child is not a citizen unless (a) the birth is registered at an Indian consulate within one year of its occurrence or the commencement of the Act, whichever is later (or later with Central Government permission), or (b) the father is, at the time of birth, in service under a Government in India (/031). The s2(3) posthumous rule fixes the father's status as at his death where the child is born after the father dies. A parent who is a citizen by birth (s3), registration (s5) or naturalisation (s6) — not 'by descent only' — transmits WITHOUT the proviso conditions (the generational brake). Present retention is subject to s9(1) no-dual loss.

For the s4(1)(a) cohort, citizenship by descent vests at birth where the father is a citizen not 'by descent only'; where the father IS a citizen 'by descent only', the FIRST PROVISO makes consulate registration a condition precedent. Registration must be effected at an Indian consulate (defined in s2(1)(d) as the consular office where a register of births is kept) within one year of the birth or of the Act's commencement, whichever is later; late registration is possible only with the Central Government's permission. Alternatively, the government-service limb dispenses with registration where the father is in service under a Government in India (Central or State) at the birth. Section 4(2) supplies a curative mechanism: if the Central Government so directs, a birth is deemed to have been registered with its permission even though permission was not obtained before registration. Proof of the claim rests on the father's Indian citizenship at the birth date, the birth record, and (where required) the consular registration or government-service evidence. Where doubt exists, s13 certification is available. Later voluntary foreign acquisition triggers automatic loss under s9(1).

IN-DSC-01 rests on section 4(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act 1955: 'A person born outside India shall be a citizen of India by descent,— (a) on or after the 26th day of January, 1950, but before the 10th day of December, 1992, if his father is a citizen of India at the time of his birth.' Descent in this era is strictly PATRILINEAL — only the father could transmit citizenship, the pre-1992 text having spoken of 'any male person' (/027). The clause is qualified by the FIRST PROVISO to s4(1): where the father was himself a citizen of India 'by descent only', the child is not a citizen unless the birth is registered at an Indian consulate within one year (or the father is in service under a Government in India). By s4(3) any person born outside undivided India who was, or was deemed to be, a citizen at the commencement of the Constitution is deemed a citizen 'by descent only' — triggering that proviso on the next generation. The current s4(1) wording is the text substituted by Act 6 of 2004 s.4 (w.e.f. 3-12-2004), embedding the earlier Act 39/1992 change; the s4(1)(a) rule remains operative today to determine the citizenship of the pre-1992 cohort (as of 2026-07).

Primary authority: Citizenship Act 1955 s4(1)(a) with the first proviso and s4(3) (IN-PRIMARY-02); the patrilineal-to-either-parent shift is anchored by the Act 39 of 1992 substitution of 'any person' for 'any male person' (s4(3) amendment footnote, line 213). The Constitution Arts 5-8 (IN-PRIMARY-01) define the commencement cohort that s4(3) deems 'descent-only'. The Supreme Court of India is the apex interpretive authority; no supranational layer exists. POSITIVE DISCONFIRMATION: the Evidence Table records no reported apex determination directly construing s4(1)(a) father-only descent; the leading loss-side authority Izhar Ahmad Khan v Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 1052) concerns s9(2)/Schedule III (foreign-passport proof of voluntary acquisition), relevant to the retention overlay rather than to s4 acquisition itself. No directly-on-point descent precedent is asserted; the rule is applied on settled statutory text, and the gender character of the pre-1992 rule is established from the amendment footnote.