Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur on Saturday said that the Ministry of External Affairs’ statement that a passport is only a travel document and not proof of Indian citizenship is a “misreading” of the law with potentially serious constitutional consequences, Live Law reported.
Addressing an event in New Delhi, Lokur said that the Passports Act distinguishes between a “passport” and a “travel document”, making it legally untenable to treat the two as synonymous.
Referring to the preamble of the Passports Act, Lokur noted that the legislation was enacted “to provide for the issue of passports and travel documents, and to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and other persons”.
He said Parliament had deliberately used the terms “passport” and “travel document” separately throughout the law.
“Parliament does not make laws and use superfluous words or words that have no meaning,” Live Law quoted Lokur as saying. “Therefore, when the Passports Act talks about a passport and a travel document, it means these are two separate documents. To say that a passport is nothing but a travel document is a complete misreading of the provisions of the Passports Act.”
Lokur said the legal position should be made clear that “a person who holds an Indian passport is a citizen of India”.
He also said that Indian embassies and foreign consulates issue visas on the understanding that the passport holder is an Indian citizen. If the Indian government itself does not recognise a passport as proof of citizenship, it could create complications internationally, Lokur said.
He added that the Centre’s position was “totally contrary to the law and totally contrary to the Constitution of India”.
After the ministry’s statement on June 24, Opposition leaders questioned the Centre on what documents Indians could rely on to prove their citizenship. The following day, the Centre clarified that passports have never been considered proof of citizenship, adding that no such decision was taken either recently or in the last 12 years.
The government cited Section 20 of the 1967 Passports Act, which grants the Union government discretionary authority to issue a passport or travel document to a person who is not an Indian citizen if it deems it necessary in the public interest.
It also pointed to Bombay High Court judgements from 2013 that observe that possessing a passport does not establish citizenship.
The Supreme Court and different High Courts have, over the years, held that documents such as Aadhaar card, voter identity card, permanent account card and a certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat Secretary, as well as ownership of a bank account or property, are not evidence of citizenship.
There is no single document that proves Indian citizenship. Only foreign nationals who take up Indian citizenship are granted actual citizenship certificates. People born in India do not have any such document.
Edited by Tanya Shrivastava.
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!