Why is there police verification before a passport is issued?
Police verification is intended to confirm an applicant's identity, address, and background. Authorities argue that it helps detect fraudulent applications, prevent duplicate identities, verify criminal records, and ensure that passports are not issued to individuals who may pose a threat to national security.
(A passport is a travel document," says eminent jurist Harish Salve.
"It enables you to travel to foreign countries."
He also adds: "A Birth certificate is good enough but that does not mean, no body can challenge your birth certificate. Passport is also normally good enough; in fact it is the most formal document. Every context will have different rules ... how will you prove your citizenship. In India, if I have to prove my citizenship ...and there are rules how will you prove it.
Normally, if you have a passport, no further question is asked."
ZZZZ *****
Salve also says : If one has all relevant documents PAN, Aadhar, Passport etc -- still there can be challenge. "Somebody can say you have wrongly obtained it".
The procedure is hectic, but it still sounds straightforward. Many applicants describe the process of police verification as stressful and intrusive. Over the years, there have been allegations of unnecessary delays, repeated visits to police stations, and demands for excessive documentation.
After navigating the maze of paperwork, verification checks, and bureaucratic hurdles, what does the successful applicant finally receive? According to recent official clarifications, he gets access to merely a "travel document".
Does the government issue passports to non-Indians?
If the passport isn't proof of citizenship, does the government issue Indian passports to non-Indians?
The answer to this question, surprisingly, is a yes.
Section 20 of the Passports Act, 1967, empowers the Central Government to issue a passport or travel document to a person who is not an Indian citizen if it considers such issuance necessary in the public interest. Such cases are rare and exceptional, and receiving such a document does not make the holder an Indian citizen.
"Could the government tell us how many non-Indian citizens it has issued Indian passports to?" senior journalist Vir Sanghvi asked on X amid the debate.
This raises another interesting question. If a passport can, in exceptional circumstances, be issued to a non-citizen, and if the government itself says that a passport is not conclusive proof of citizenship, then what exactly does the passport prove for the holder?
The passport is only enough to facilitate international travel. But not enough to settle the question of citizenship.
Why does the government say that a passport is its property?
Unlike Aadhaar or PAN, a passport is considered a sovereign document by the Government of India. Section 17 of the Passports Act, 1967, states that every passport issued under the Act remains the property of the Central Government at all times.
The argument is that a passport represents the Indian state internationally. Since the passport can be revoked, impounded, or cancelled, ownership remains with the government.
Yet the MEA official's remarks raise an obvious question. If the passport is not conclusive proof of citizenship, why is its return treated with such significance?
The state insists that the document belongs to it and must be surrendered when citizenship changes.
This suggests that the passport carries a value beyond merely facilitating travel. It isn't just a travel pass.
Either the passport is a powerful document whose possession matters greatly, or it is merely a travel document with limited value. How can it be argued both ways?
What is considered proof of Indian citizenship?
This brings us to the biggest question.
Which document proves a person to be a citizen of India ? ::: The answer may be complex and yet simple :::
India does not have a single universally accepted document that conclusively proves citizenship in every circumstance.
Citizenship is determined under the Citizenship Act, 1955, through birth, descent, registration, naturalisation, or incorporation of territory.
The law itself has been amended four times, with the one in 1986 shifting strict citizenship by birth to needing at least one parent to be an Indian citizen to reduce illegal immigration.
The latest Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, made provisions to accelerate the citizenship process for persecuted minorities in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
As seen in recent verification drives, documents sought for official purposes and court hearings, a combination of documents, like Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, voter IDs, ration cards, and even passports, which are commonly carried by millions of Indians can be used as proof of citizenship.
The passport-nationality issue has been explained very clearly by former Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Menon Rao in a detailed post on X.
"A passport is issued only after the Government has verified that the applicant is an Indian citizen. While citizenship itself is governed by the Citizenship Act, the passport remains the Republic's most trusted document for international travel and, in ordinary life, the clearest evidence of Indian nationality," says Rao.
Though there are questions on passport and nationality, and a bigger one, the lack of a single document that proves Indian citizenship, Rao helps draw the conclusion for now.
"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," she explains.
 |
| Nirupama Rao |
ends
This is what Shashi Tharoor tweeted on this complex subject :::::: The recent statement by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) - - on #PassportSevaDivas, no less! - - clarifying that an Indian passport is primarily a "travel document and not conclusive proof of citizenship" has triggered a predictable wave of public bewilderment and political sparring.
ReplyDeleteWhile the government defends this as a long-standing legal position rooted in Section 20 of the Passports Act of 1967 (which technically allows the state to issue passports to non-citizens under rare, public-interest circumstances) this is a distinction without a difference, meaningless to the average citizen.
For decades, the passport has been considered the gold standard of identity. We navigate the gruelling bureaucratic maze of police verifications and document checks required to obtain one, precisely because the state demands concrete proof of citizenship before granting it. To turn around and declare that the very document born from this rigorous vetting does not actually prove citizenship creates an absurd legal paradox. If a passport does not establish domestic citizenship, then what does?
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Aadhaar card is merely a proof of identity and residence, not citizenship. This leaves millions of Indians in a bizarre administrative limbo where they possess world-class biometric and state-issued documents, yet none are legally deemed "conclusive" proof of their nationality within their own borders.
To end this fatuous controversy once and for all, a common-sense legislative overhaul is urgently required. The government should formally amend the legal framework to make both the passport and the Aadhaar card valid, conclusive proofs of Indian citizenship unless they are explicitly cancelled or withdrawn by the state.
Implementing this requires solving a critical administrative hurdle: because Aadhaar is currently issued based on 182 days of local residence rather than nationality, it is held by citizens and non-citizen residents alike. The solution is straightforward. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) should introduce a visually distinct Aadhaar card (featuring, say, a visible diagonal red stripe across the front), specifically designated for non-citizens living in India.
By clearly demarcating the two categories, the state can safely mandate that carrying either a standard citizen's Aadhaar or a valid passport is compulsory and sufficient proof of citizenship for all Indian nationals at all times. This dual-document policy would immediately streamline domestic verification, eliminate arbitrary bureaucratic challenges during electoral revisions, and provide every Indian with absolute, unquestionable legal certainty regarding their identity. (from Shashi Tharoor's tweet - blogger)
Blog is Well argued. How and why after expiry of passport the individual has to go through entire process of documentation to secure new passport with extended validity. The expired passport should be good enough document, since it was issued after thorough HD documentation, checks and police verification, to issue new passport. Also those who never applied for passports , what about them. What should they apply for to have a proof of citizenship? - Patil Bhau, Pune
ReplyDelete