Passport Controversy: Opposition Attack Government, Centre Clarifies “It is Nothing New”

Manas Dasgupta

NEW DELHI, June 25: On a foreign land, an Indian passport is taken as a proof of the person’s Indian citizenship, but in the homeland it is not. The passport is issued only by the Government of India and only after satisfying itself that the applicant individual is a citizen of India. The main reason for rejecting an application for a passport is that the “applicant is not a citizen of India.”

But despite all the precautions, the centre has now claimed that the pocket-sized booklet of 36 or 60 pages, with the national emblem printed in gold in the centre of a navy blue, white, or maroon cover made of a heavy-duty fabric-based material, the first page of which identifies the holder – their name and their nationality – which the proud holder believed recognised him as an Indian,  is not any proof of Indian citizenship, not legally anyway, and this has stirred up a hornet’s nest over its purpose, legal and in common practice.

The row broke out after a foreign ministry official on Wednesday asserted that a passport was “strictly a travel document” and not a proof of citizenship and its grants did not automatically give access welfare schemes for Indian citizens.

The opposition on Thursday stepped its attack on the Centre’ assertion over the passports and questioned what documents Indians can rely on to establish their nationality. The criticism came even as the government insisted there was nothing new about its position and said the legal understanding of passports and citizenship has existed for decades.

Congress leader Supriya Shrinate questioned the government’s stance, asking what document citizens should treat as proof of nationality if passports, Aadhaar cards, PAN cards and voter IDs are all deemed insufficient. “The Modi government says that a passport is not proof of citizenship. Is India’s passport also issued to non-Indians? Does the police come to conduct what verification before issuing a passport?

Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship; Passport is not proof of citizenship; PAN is not proof of citizenship; Voter ID is not proof of citizenship. So, what is proof of citizenship? Modi’s foot-kissing? BJP’s ID? RSS‘s cap?” she wrote in a post on X.

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi said the government’s position was creating confusion. “The direction in which the country appears to be heading raises serious concerns. It increasingly seems that, in the coming days, only BJP membership could become synonymous with citizenship. That is the impression many people are getting,” he said.

Referring to provisions of the Passports Act, he added, “Look at Section 6(2)(a) of the Passport Act. It states that a passport can only be issued to an Indian citizen. If a person is not a citizen, a passport cannot be granted. So what are people supposed to make of this situation?… These are the concerns being raised by citizens, and they deserve clear answers,” Owaisi added.

Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) spokesperson Clyde Crasto also sought clarity from the government. “The ministry of external affairs, Government of India, now goes on to say that your passport is just a travel document and not a proof of citizenship of India. Earlier, they said the Aadhaar card is no proof of citizenship, the voter ID card is no proof of citizenship, and many such documents of the government are no proof of citizenship of India; then what proves you to be a citizen of India is what the government needs to tell us,” Crasto said.

He added, “The BJP-led government in the Centre comes out with clauses to suit their convenience all the time. Don’t be surprised if tomorrow, the government comes up with a clause saying that if you become a member of the BJP, you prove yourself to be a citizen of India,” he said. The Trinamool Congress MP Sougata Roy also disagreed with the MEA’s position, saying, “That is for the government to determine. There are other citizenship proofs. For instance, the Aadhaar card is there. So MEA has to tell us what is valid and what is not. I do not agree with this.”

X erupted with tweets serious and sarcastic. Many pointed out that under Section 6(2) of the Passport Act the first reason for an application to be rejected is “that the applicant is not a citizen of India.” They have argued the government is expected to satisfy itself in that regard – i.e., the applying individual is a citizen of India, through any legal means – before issuing a passport to that individual.

Responding to the criticism, the government said the controversy stemmed from a misunderstanding of a long-established legal position. “It was not decided yesterday that the Passport is not proof of citizenship. It was not even decided in the last 12 years,” a government official said, adding that the position has existed for decades.

Defending its stand, the government pointed to statutory provisions and judicial rulings that it said make clear that passports have never been treated as definitive proof of citizenship. “The Passport has never been a proof of citizenship. The Passport Act 1967 says that passports can be given to non-citizens. Judgments of the Bombay HC from 2013 have made it clear that passport is not a proof of citizenship,” an official said.

The MEA also referred to Section 20 of the Passports Act, 1967, which allows the Centre to issue passports or travel documents to non-citizens in specific circumstances if it considers such a move to be in the public interest. Under the provision, the government may issue a passport or travel document “to a person who is not a citizen of India” if it believes doing so is necessary in the public interest.

The government’s remarks quickly gained traction on social media, where users questioned why a document that enables international travel, secures consular protection abroad and is accepted by immigration authorities around the world is not considered proof of nationality. The government’s clarification also highlights a broader reality: India does not issue a single document that automatically serves as definitive proof of citizenship for every citizen.

In fact, when asked in Parliament in February 2020 whether documents such as Aadhaar, passport, voter ID, PAN card or a birth certificate could be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship, the ministry of home affairs did not endorse any one document. Instead, it said that questions of citizenship are determined under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the rules framed under it.

Under the law, Indian citizenship can be acquired through birth, descent, registration, naturalisation or incorporation of territory. As a result, citizenship is established based on an individual’s circumstances and supporting records rather than through a single nationally issued citizenship card, which India has never adopted.

Award-winning lyricist Javed Akhtar called the ministry’s position “absurd” and questioned the logic of the government issuing passports if it WAS unconvinced the holder is not, in fact, an Indian citizen. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray had similar questions for the government. He also asked if the government’s position – that passports can also be issued to non-Indians – could undermine foreign nations’ trust in the document.

And others rattled off the list of other government ID now also discounted as citizenship proof, including the Aadhaar and the Election Commission’s voters card both of which had been rejected for use by voters for re-verification in state electoral rolls. Ex-Congress leader Kapil Sibal was among those who then asked which document is proof of citizenship.

Referring to the 1967 law that governs issue of passports, sources pointed out these documents can technically be given to non-citizens too. The Bombay High Court made the same point in a 2013 judgment and held that because the law allows for passports to non-citizens, mere possession cannot be considered ‘conclusive’ or ‘definitive’ evidence of citizenship.

Citizenship remains a subject governed by an older law – the Citizenship Act of 1955. This is the law used to establish an individual’s status as a citizen, sources said.

But amidst the row, Indian passport ranks 75th in the world, a significant improvement from its 85th position in 2025, according to the latest Henley Passport Index 2026. The index, which measures the travel freedom offered by passports across the globe, gives India a visa-free score of 56.

This means Indian passport holders can travel to 56 destinations without obtaining a visa in advance. The score includes countries that allow visa-free entry, visa-on-arrival, visitor permits or electronic travel authorisations (ETA).

The Henley Passport Index ranks 199 passports based on access to 227 destinations worldwide using data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA). A passport receives a score when its holder can enter a destination without obtaining a visa beforehand, including situations where a visa-on-arrival, visitor’s permit or electronic travel authorisation is available.

At the top of the 2026 rankings, Singapore retained its position as the world’s most powerful passport, offering visa-free access to 192 destinations. Japan ranked second with access to 187 destinations, followed by South Korea with access to 186. Afghanistan remained at the bottom of the index, with its passport providing visa-free access to just 24 destinations.