Listen to this article:

On June 25, an unnamed Ministry of External Affairs official triggered a controversy by saying – in passing – that an Indian passport is merely a travel document and does not constitute proof of citizenship. As if that were not worrying enough, the Narendra Modi government now appears to be doubling down on the astonishing – and dangerous – assertion that a properly issued passport that the Indian state considers valid and authentic in every respect is not enough to authenticate the citizenship of an Indian. However, the fact that it is using unnamed ‘sources’ and an uncritical media to do its dirty work, tells us all we need to know about the shakiness of this claim. It is astonishing that the Modi sarkar does not have a single senior minister or official who is willing to put their name behind this politically driven assault on the sanctity of the country’s passport.

Across friendly media, the ‘sources’ are making two key points, both completely specious.

The first is that Section 20 of the Passports Act, 1967, allows the government to issue an Indian passport to someone who is not an Indian citizen – if it is “of the opinion that it is necessary so to do in the public interest”. Hence, we are told, possession of an Indian passport cannot be proof of citizenship.

Now, Section 20 is an exceptional savings clause – designed, presumably, to help India’s foreign intelligence assets or allies get out of a spot of bother. And this is why an Indian passport cannot be proof of citizenship for the 99.9999% of Indian passport holders who are actually Indian?! Never mind that the government maintains a closely guarded list of the handful of non-Indians who have been granted Indian passports. Even if their total number since 1967 has crossed, say, three digits, the number still valid is likely to be even smaller. A simple search in the MHA’s secure database would allow any query over citizenship to be instantly resolved.

The second argument being touted is a 2013 Bombay high court judgment in a matter concerning four alleged Bangladeshi nationals who were accused of having fraudulently obtained various Indian documents, including passports, birth certificates and Aadhaar cards. Though the judgment by Justice K.U. Chandiwal is not available online, the Times of India reported the case on September 3, 2013, with the headline, ‘Passport alone no proof of citizenship: Bombay HC’. Had the ‘sources’ bothered to actually read the story, they would have noticed that (i) the story does not actually quote the judge saying what the headline does, and (ii) even if the judge explicitly said in his (unavailable) judgment what the headline says, the passports in question were actually not valid since they had already been ‘terminated’ – presumably because the government realised they had been fraudulently obtained:

“The Bombay high court has refused to grant relief to a man and three others charged with being illegal immigrants even after they produced passports (later terminated), Aadhaar cards and birth certificates to prove they were Indians.” (Emphasis added).

In other words, the question of whether a valid passport constitutes proof of citizenship has not quite been definitively settled in the courts.

Presumption of citizenship, until fraud established

While the government has chosen to make anonymous – and weak – assertions in the media, we should be grateful to former foreign secretary Nirupama Rao for seeking to provide a more reasoned explanation of the MEA’s assertion that a passport cannot be considered proof of citizenship:

“A passport is issued because the government has satisfied itself that you are an Indian citizen. It is therefore powerful evidence of citizenship in ordinary life and in international travel. But in a legal dispute over citizenship itself, the governing law remains the Citizenship Act, and a passport is not conclusive proof that overrides all other evidence.”

At one level, this is a tautology applicable to many situations in which a legal document........

© The Wire