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 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.Bogus argumentsAcross 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 establishedWhile 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 is disputed. A man inherits a house from a deceased relative on the basis of a will. The will provides powerful evidence of rightful possession and ownership. But in a legal dispute over the will, the governing law remains the Indian Succession Act, and the will may not be “conclusive proof that overrides all other evidence”. Yet, if tomorrow, Amit Shah were to declare that a duly registered will can no longer be considered proof of inheritance, the firestorm of consequences can well be imagined.While there can be no argument about the centrality of the Citizenship Act, Rao’s formulation needs caveating: Unless its validity is displaced by a finding of fraud, forgery or deception through a proper procedure, an Indian passport has to carry with it a strong legal presumption of citizenship.If there is a legal dispute, and it is proved subsequently that the passport was acquired through fraudulent means or doctored evidence (in contravention of the Passport Act or Citizenship Act) then the law allows for the passport to be impounded or revoked. Indeed, the very provision of revocation exists in order to ensure the sanctity of the passport and what it represents.Since possession of a passport is not a requirement of citizenship – just 10% of Indians possess one – the mere revocation of a passport does not mean an individual is not an Indian citizen. The Citizenship Act makes it clear that citizenship is acquired by (1) being born in India before 1987; or (2) being born in India after 1987 to at least one Indian parent; or (3) being born in India after 2003 to at least one Indian parent, provided the other parent is not in India ‘illegally’; or (4) being naturalised/registered through residence, marriage, descent, refugee status etc. All of this is subject to the person not having acquired the citizenship of another country.At the time of issuing an Indian passport to an individual, it is expected that the Indian State would have definitively satisfied itself that the applicant belongs to one of these categories since only Indian citizens are eligible to apply for an Indian passport. Indeed the very first ground on which a passport is to be refused under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 is: “(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India.”Every applicant ticks a box to note their citizenship status (i.e. by birth/descent/naturalisation), but if it emerges that they lied about this and acquired an Indian passport fraudulently, then the issuing authority has the power under Section 10 of the Passport Act to impound/revoke it.What Bombay HC said in 2025There is, in fact, a Bombay High Court case from 2025 in which Justice Amit Borkar adjudicated a matter very similar to the 2013 case that helps to clarify matters. A Thane resident, Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, was alleged by the authorities to be a Bangladeshi national and arrested. In his bail application before the high court, he said he possessed “multiple valid documents issued by competent Indian authorities, such as Aadhaar Card, Voter ID, PAN Card, and Passport.” The prosecution claimed these were all obtained fraudulently, citing a copy of Sardar’s Bangladeshi birth certificate which they recovered from his mobile. After hearing both sides, Justice Borkar said:“In my opinion, the Citizenship Act, 1955 is the main and controlling law for deciding questions about nationality in India today. This is the statute that lays down who can be a citizen, how citizenship can be acquired, and in what situations it can be lost. Merely having documents such as an Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, or Voter ID does not, by itself, make someone a citizen of India. These documents are meant for identification or availing services, but they do not override the basic legal requirements of citizenship as prescribed in the Act.” (Emphasis added)Interestingly, the judge mentioned Aadhaar and PAN (whose rules in any case allow non-citizens to apply for them) and Voter ID (which only citizens are entitled to apply for) but leaves passport out in the list of documents whose possession “does not, by itself, make someone a citizen of India”. This, despite the fact that Sadar’s counsel cited his Indian passport. Even if that was an oversight on his part, Justice Borkar’s judgment emphasises that the key issue at stake is not the status of a document (i.e. a passport) per se as a marker of citizenship but the allegation that it might have been obtained through fraud:“When there is an allegation that a person’s identity is forged or that the person is of foreign origin, the court cannot decide the matter based only on the possession of certain identity cards. The claim of citizenship must be examined strictly under the rules of the Citizenship Act, 1955.”To summarise the legal position, when a person is accused of fraudulently acquiring a passport, it stands to reason that their eligibility for a passport has to be tested de novo, with reference to the Citizenship Act. But when no fraud is alleged or suspected, the presumption has to be that the bearer of a passport is indeed an Indian citizen. Indeed, since birth certificates do not carry biometrics, the only document with which an Indian citizen can readily prove their citizenship should the need ever arise abroad or at home is a passport.Another way to think about the problem is to look at an Indian passport obtained on the basis of counterfeit documents in the same was as we would a counterfeit currency note. Both are purportedly issued by the state but need to be identified and taken out of circulation. But just as the existence of counterfeit currency does not invalidate the rupee as a medium of exchange or store of value – no ‘sources’ will ever say a currency note issued by the Reserve Bank of India is not definitive proof that it is actually money, – the fact that some non-citizens fraudulently obtain an Indian passport cannot invalidate the Indian passport as proof of nationality.Modi’s politics of demographic insecurityThere are two reasons why the government’s decision to invalidate the passport as proof of citizenship has triggered extensive anxiety.Until a decade ago, access to government services and facilities was universal, in the sense that citizenship was never an issue. Under Modi’s aggressive politics of demographic insecurity, however, millions of poor Indians, especially Muslims, are being excluded from voting rights, welfare benefits and even domicile rights.Second, the Modi government is seeking to redefine citizenship on the basis of politically-driven administrative arbitrariness. The goal – as is evident from the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls that it is backing – is to penalise and disenfranchise individuals considered politically suspect by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Eventually, the aim may even be to strip bona fide citizens of their citizenship. This was what Amit Shah was attempting to do with his Citizenship (Amendment) Act and National Population Register plan until the results of that process in Assam ended up classifying many more Hindus than Muslims as ‘foreigners’.A crowded centre in Nadia, West Bengal, for appeals under the Special Intensive Revision, on January 5, 2026. Photo: PTIModern democratic states put in place systems in order to avoid ad-hocism, arbitariness and corruption in administrative functioning. In the case of passports, the Indian State devised rules based on the Passport Act (and, indirectly, the Citizenship Act) which apply to all, which every applicant must satisfy, following which a passport is issued. An applicant for a passport is asked to fill out a form spelling out their particulars, including place of birth and citizenship category, and submit proof of birth date and proof of residence. Police verification is then carried out to confirm these details.It is worth noting that the Indian passport form does not ask applicants born after 1987 to provide proof of their parents’ citizenship (as mandated by the Citizenship Act). In fact, it does not even make the submission of the applicant’s birth certificate mandatory or require proof of place of birth. The reason for this is that the State knows the vast majority of people would struggle to obtain this documentation. The applicant makes a self-declaration and the State uses the process of police verification to satisfy itself. When the State substitutes police verification for, inter alia, documentary proof of an applicant’s Indian ancestry, it cannot then turn around and say the passport doesn’t prove citizenship.Once issued, the passport must serve as proof that the rules the Indian State devised under the Passport Act – which bars Indian passports for those who are not Indian citizens (with one narrow exception, as we saw, under Section 20) – have been complied with. In short, unless it is established that the evidence the applicant provided while applying for a passport was fabricated and their passport is impounded, an Indian passport has to serve as proof of Indian citizenship for every situation where this matters – eg. voting, employment, holding constitutional offices, getting certain welfare benefits.Once the competent authority issues a passport, other officials or branches of government cannot say “this isn’t proof that you are an Indian citizen”. Unless there are grounds to suspect otherwise, the presumption has to be that an Indian passport holder is an Indian citizen. If a government department has doubts, it needs to inform the competent authority, which will decide if suitable action – i.e. revocation or impounding of the passport – is required or not.Hardwiring arbitrarinessIf a legal dispute over citizenship arises, of course the governing law remains the Citizenship Act. But by introducing an unfounded element of doubt about what the possession of an Indian passport signifies, the Modi government has taken its fear mongering over “infiltration” down an even more dangerous path. The Union home ministry has officially admitted it has no authentic data on the number of foreigners who are living in India without valid documents. Despite this, Modi and Shah got a pliant Election Commission to revise the electoral rolls with the aim of weeding out these ‘foreigners’. The EC went about its job with all the arbitrariness it could muster, leading to millions of Indians being disenfranchised in Bihar, West Bengal and elsewhere.As we are witnessing in Bengal now, being stripped of the right to vote is just the first step. Citizens whom the EC arbitrarily disenfranchised are now being told they will no longer be eligible for welfare benefits. What comes next is equally predictable. Chronology samajhiye.The bottom line is this: there is no proof a citizen has of their citizenship which the state is willing to treat as definitive – which means the determination will be made through a subjective process. Even though you have a valid passport, the state may demand your birth certificate. If you are able to find and produce one, some official may ask for a geolocated video of your birth with timestamp, duly authenticated by the Gujarat Forensic Science Laboratory. And even if that is found by some miracle, you may be asked to prove that the bonny baby emerging from your mother’s womb is indeed you. And woe betide if you were born after 2003, for you may then be asked to bring proof that your mother or father are not ‘illegal migrants’.The Indian State does not have the administrative capacity to subject 1.4 billion Indians to this kind of treatment. But if you triangulate booth and block level voting patterns with religion and caste data – and there are very smart people in the ruling establishment who are doing this – the numbers become much more manageable.The passport controversy should be understood for what it is: a reminder to the Indian middle class that there is a more profound and sinister process under way. A process by which a prime minister who saw his electoral strength in the Lok Sabha fall below the half-way mark in 2024 is going about dissolving the people and electing another — to borrow Brecht’s bitter formulation about the fate of citizens who “squandered the confidence of the government”.