Retired judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Madan Lokur, discussed recent comments by an official of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) that the Indian passport is primarily a “travel document” and not conclusive proof of citizenship. He referred to the Passports Act, 1967 and emphasised that both its preamble and operative provisions distinguish between a “passport” and a “travel document.” In his view, that distinction must be given some meaning. Parliament does not legislate in superfluous terms, and it was therefore wrong to say that a passport is merely a travel document and not evidence of citizenship. He said that, as a matter of ordinary legal understanding, a person who holds an Indian passport is a citizen of India, and that attempts to deny that amounted to a serious misreading of the statute.
He highlighted the implications of the MEA’s stance. If Indian authorities were to maintain that a passport does not certify citizenship, then foreign embassies and consulates could refuse visas on the basis that the holder had failed to establish nationality. Such a position, he said, would reduce a passport to a mere permission to travel, which would be contrary to the statute.
Justice Lokur also referred to Section 20 of the Passports Act, which is sometimes invoked to suggest that Indian passports may be issued to non-citizens. He said that the significance of this provision was unclear because there was no data as to how many non-citizens, if any, had in fact been issued such passports, in what circumstances, and on what legal footing. In the absence of such evidence, reliance on Section 20 was of limited assistance. He compared the point to exceptional statutory powers exercised only in rare cases, observing that the mere existence of a power did not justify treating all passports as inconclusive of citizenship.
He concluded by emphasising the legal consequence of treating individuals as non-citizens. Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India are available to all persons, but the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 are reserved to citizens. If individuals are effectively denied recognition as citizens because they are not registered as voters, then they stand to lose core Constitutional freedoms including the freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom to pursue any occupation. In his view, this made the controversy over citizenship and exclusion from voter rolls a matter of exceptional seriousness.
