A few days ago, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that anyone born in the US is a citizen of that country. Such a clear statement of law on a fundamental issue like citizenship is yet to come from India’s Supreme Court, although that issue came before it in the context of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), where the question of the citizenship of Indian voters was an issue.A curious situation exists in India where the voters’ list is being revised intensively and voters are being asked to produce documents to prove their citizenship, but the Ministry of Home Affairs, the administrative ministry, has not so far spelt out the documents that citizens are required to produce as proof of their citizenship.The Election Commission of India (ECI) has made it clear that Aadhaar cards, ration cards, voter ID, passports, etc. will not be accepted as proof of citizenship. Then what is exactly the document that should be produced for this purpose? These are the documents that people generally possess, but they are of no use in this case.It is in this context that a recent statement of an official of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) that the passport is just a travel document and not proof of citizenship has attracted a great amount of public attention. The ECI has already made it clear that it would not accept the passport as a proof of citizenship, and now the MEA official has endorsed it by terming the passport as a mere travel document.The Passports Act of 1967 presents a different pictureHowever, the Passports Act of 1967 presents a different picture. This Act does not treat the passport as a travel document – on the contrary it treats the passport as different from travel documents.Under section 2(b) of the Passports Act, a passport is defined as follows: “passport means a passport issued or deemed to have been issued under this Act”. Under section 2(e), a travel document is defined as follows: “travel document means a travel document issued or deemed to have been issued under this Act”.Thereafter, the Act classifies passports and travel documents under section 4 as follows – 4(1)(a) an ordinary passport, (b) an official passport, and (c) a diplomatic passport.In 4(2), travel documents are classified as follows:Emergency certificate authorising a person to enter IndiaCertificate of identity for the purpose of establishing the identity of personSuch other certificate or document as may be prescribed.It should be clear from the above provisions of the Act that the passport is not a travel document as defined in the Act. Travel documents are in the nature of certificates which are different from passports.Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.The MEA official’s further assertion that the passport is not a proof of citizenship flies in the face of facts and logic. This assertion has the potential of causing serious problems for Indian citizens who go abroad on the strength of an Indian passport.An Indian passport specifies the nationality of its holder, which is Indian, and it contains a request to other countries to allow the bearer “to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him or her every assistance and protection of which he or she may need”. This request is made by the order of the President of the Republic of India.Nationality, according to the New Oxford English Dictionary, means the status of belonging to a particular nation. According to the Collins Cobuild English language dictionary, citizenship is “the particular nationality that you have and the official status, rights and duties that you have because of it”.By this definition nationality can be the proof of citizenship. So, when an Indian national holds a passport, the Indian authorities are announcing to the rest of the world that he is a citizen of India and the world recognises him as such. So, if the whole world recognises an Indian passport holder as a citizen of India, how can we assert that the passport is not a proof of citizenship? It simply defies logic.A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam (AIR 1967 SC 1836) has elaborately dealt with the legal status of the passport in the context of nationality or citizenship. This judgement quotes certain authors who have defined the passport.For instance, P. Weis says “in essence a passport is a document which identifies the holder and provides evidence of his nationality”. Author Kenneth Diplock has been quoted as saying, “they [passports] are in the same category as any other evidence of the national status of an individual”.The above judgement also quotes the Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, which says a passport “is a document issued on behalf of a citizen of the United States by the secretary of state … it is to be considered as a political document by which the bearer is recognised in foreign countries as an American citizen”.Further, the US Supreme Court has been quoted in the judgement. In Kent vs Dulles, the US Supreme Court has said: “a passport not only is of great value … abroad; it is also an aid in establishing citizenship for purposes of re-entry into the United States.”Thus, the Supreme Court of India was clear that the passport proves the nationality or citizenship of a person. This is the position in almost all countries. Therefore it is difficult to understand why the MEA has taken a view that the passport is just a travel document and not a proof of citizenship.Perhaps the MEA did not want to take a position which is at variance with that of the EC, which had refused to accept the passport as a proof of citizenship while conducting the SIR. But it is not in consonance with law, the Supreme Court’s decisions and international practices.Who is a citizen of India?The law on citizenship is a little complex in India. Article 5 of the Constitution starts with a simple and straightforward provision relating to the citizenship of people who were born in India at the commencement of the Constitution. It says that at the commencement of the Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and who was born in India shall be a citizen of India.Subsequent Articles and the Citizenship Act and Rules made thereunder have made it more and more complex. But the most crucial provision is contained in Article 11, which has conferred on parliament unfettered power to make any provision with respect to the acquisition of citizenship.Thus, from a purely secular base like domicile and birth at the beginning of the Republic, citizenship in India can now be determined on religious grounds also. This transformation is the direct consequence of the untrammelled and unguided powers vested in parliament by the constitution.When the state displaces a proclivity for excluding people from the electoral list, documents that proclaim the status of citizens like the passport become crucially important. Thoughtless assertions that the passport is just a travel document can create serious problems for Indian citizens within and outside the country. This can now be settled only by judicial intervention.P.D.T. Achary is a former secretary-general of the Lok Sabha.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.