Congress member Shashi Tharoor on Friday criticized the Centre’s clarification that a passport is not conclusive proof of Indian citizenship, calling the situation an “absurd legal paradox” and urging legislative reform to end what he called a “ridiculous” controversy.
His comments came a day after the government confirmed that the passport had never been treated as proof of citizenship and that no change had been made to the policy in recent years. This clarification came in the wake of a controversy sparked by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)’s comments on Passport Seva Divas.
In a detailed post on X, Tharoor said MEA’s clarification had led to “public confusion and political debate”. While he acknowledged that the government’s position stemmed from the provisions of the 1967 Passports Act, he said the distinction was meaningless in practice.
Tharoor pointed out that Indian passports are issued only after thorough verification and examination of documents. “To turn around and declare that the document that has emerged from such strict scrutiny does not in fact prove citizenship creates an absurd legal paradox. If a passport does not prove local citizenship, what does?” he asked.
Raises concerns about ‘administrative forgetfulness’
The Congress leader also pointed out the legal situation surrounding Aadhaar, pointing out that the Supreme Court has held that Aadhaar serves as proof of identity and residence but not citizenship.
According to Tharoor, “This leaves millions of Indians in a strange administrative limbo where they possess world-class biometric and state-issued documents, yet none of them are ‘conclusive’ legal proof of their citizenship within their borders.”
Seeking to end the controversy, Tharoor proposed changes to the legal framework so that both passports and Aadhaar cards could be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship unless they are canceled or withdrawn by the government.
He also suggested that the Unique Identification Authority of India should issue a visually distinct Aadhaar card to non-citizen residents. Such a distinction would allow the government to recognize a standard Aadhaar card or a valid Indian passport as sufficient proof of citizenship, he said.
“By clearly demarcating the two categories, the state can safely enforce that the holding of an ordinary citizen’s Aadhaar or a valid passport is mandatory and sufficient proof of citizenship for all Indian citizens at all times,” the Thiruvananthapuram MP wrote.
“This dual document policy would streamline local verification on the spot, eliminate arbitrary bureaucratic challenges during electoral audits, and provide every Indian with absolute and indubitable legal certainty as to his or her identity. End of story!” He said.
What did the government say?
The controversy stems from an MEA briefing earlier this week where officials said the Indian passport is primarily a travel document and should not be treated as definitive proof of citizenship.
The government then clarified that this had always been the legal position and that no new decision had been taken in the past 12 years.
The government also referred to the 2013 Bombay High Court ruling which held that possession of a passport by itself does not prove citizenship.
The officials pointed to Article 20 of the Passports Law of 1967, which allows the center to issue a passport or travel document to a non-citizen if it deems that doing so is necessary in the public interest.
