MEA's passport remark needs a crucial clarification

On June 24, MEA officials turned a few heads by announcing that a passport is only a travel document, and not conclusive proof of citizenship. There was much consternation at this statement, and it generated more heat than light.

For starters, the statement is, strictly speaking, correct. Citizenship is a legal status that accrues to an individual by virtue of fulfilling terms and conditions outlined in certain governing instruments, that is, Articles 5-11 of the Constitution, and Citizenship Act 1955, itself made and amended from time to time under the terms of Article 11.

Under Sections 3-7 of Citizenship Act, there are 5 routes by which this status may be acquired:


Birth A person born in India today is a citizen as long as one of her parents is an Indian citizen and the other is anybody other than an illegal migrant.

Descent Birth abroad to at least one Indian citizen parent, with the birth duly registered at an Indian consulate.

Registration Certain categories of people with pre-existing ties to India, including persons of Indian origin, or spouses of Indian citizens, who have been ordinarily resident in India for 7 yrs, may register as Indian citizens.

Naturalisation For foreign nationals of good character who meet certain additional criteria pertaining to residence, language and services rendered to GoI.

Incorporation of territory When new land joins India, GoI may notify who from among its people will become citizens of India.

If someone does not fall into any of these categories, or those specified directly in the text of the Constitution (which pertain mostly to Partition refugees of one kind or another), they are not citizens of India. The grant by GoI or possession by an individual of any single document, including a passport, cannot trump these explicit statutory and constitutional provisions that define who a citizen is.

For example, Section 20 of the Passports Act 1967, allows GoI to hand out, in exceptional cases, passports and other travel documents to persons who are not citizens of India (that is, who do not meet any of the statutory and constitutional criteria to enjoy that status).

This power is usually used not to issue passports but rather to grant other, lesser, emergency travel documents to refugees and other persons. But the fact remains that a passport issued under this section - which may be otherwise indistinguishable from a citizen's passport - would not entitle the holder to the benefits of citizenship.

The key difference, then, is between a legal status and a mere document, which may be used to buttress one's claim to that status. While, therefore, MEA's statement cannot be assailed on the grounds of strict legality, it remains open to the charge of missing the wood for the trees.

Barring the narrow exception in Section 20 of Passports Act, passports are granted only to Indian citizens, and, indeed, Section 6(2) mandates issuing authorities to refuse passports to those who are not citizens of India. Citizenship is, thus, for most people a precondition, to be established at the threshold of the application. As anyone who has applied for a passport is aware, the checks are not perfunctory either, with physical police verification still a mandatory part of the process.

Incidents of citizenship are not small: constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, equal opportunity in public employment, and protection against discrimination on certain grounds are available only to citizens of India, not to foreign nationals. It would be, therefore, wise for the ministry to issue a clarification stating that, in ordinary cases, a passport will create a strong presumption in favour of the holder being a citizen of India to allay any fears.

In one of the most famous prosecutions of the ancient world, a tyrannical governor of Sicily was charged with various outrages against his people. In one case, he had had a man flogged in public. Cicero, in his successful savaging of the official in the dock, recounted the experience of the wronged man during his ordeal: 'No words came from his lips in his agony except 'I am a Roman citizen'.'

President John F Kennedy later deemed this statement, in its original Latin, 'Civis Romanus sum' - I am a Roman citizen - as the 'proudest boast' of the ancient world. If 'Civis Indus sum' is ever to be a similarly proud boast, much greater care and clarity will be required in determining who is, and is not, permitted to say it.

The writer is senior resident fellow,Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy