The Right to Belong Beyond Official Documentation
Context
The meaning of citizenship in India has come under renewed scrutiny following a June 24, 2026 statement by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) describing the Indian passport as a travel document rather than a citizenship document.
Since passports are ordinarily issued only to Indian citizens, this clarification raises important constitutional concerns about what constitutes valid proof of citizenship.
Against the backdrop of recent legal and administrative developments, the debate extends beyond documentation to the principles of equality, secularism, and constitutional democracy.
Citizenship under scrutiny
Administrative and Judicial Developments
Recent developments have significantly reshaped the discourse on citizenship.
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls by the Election Commission of India (ECI), recent Supreme Court judgments, and the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, operationalised in 2024, have expanded official scrutiny over citizenship while increasing the responsibility of individuals to establish their legal status.
Passport as Evidence of Citizenship
Although a passport primarily facilitates international travel, it is issued almost exclusively to Indian citizens, except in exceptional cases permitted in the public interest.
Consequently, it serves as strong evidence of citizenship. Treating it merely as a travel document creates uncertainty regarding the documentary standards required to prove citizenship.
The foundations of citizenship
Constitutional Vision
The Constitution addressed citizenship through Articles 5–11, primarily to resolve issues arising from Partition.
While Article 11 empowers Parliament to legislate on citizenship, this authority is guided by the Constitution’s foundational values of secularism, equality, and non-discrimination.
Constituent Assembly Debates
The Constituent Assembly rejected S. Deshmukh’s proposal to grant citizenship exclusively to Hindus and Sikhs.
Jawaharlal Nehru and Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar argued that a secular republic could not distinguish citizens on religious grounds, resulting in the adoption of R. Ambedkar’s religion-neutral citizenship framework.
Evolution of Citizenship Law
India initially followed the principle of jus soli, granting citizenship primarily through birth and residence.
However, subsequent amendments altered this approach. The introduction of Section 6A under the Assam Accord and the 2003 amendment, which denied citizenship by birth where one parent was an illegal migrant, reflected a gradual shift towards more restrictive citizenship norms.
Judicial Interpretation
The Supreme Court upheld Section 6A in 2024, interpreting Parliament’s powers under Article 11 broadly and recognising concerns over external aggression arising from migration into Assam.
In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2026), the Court further upheld the ECI’s authority to examine citizenship for electoral purposes and refer doubtful cases to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act.
Burden of Proof
Experiences from Assam demonstrate that individuals identified as doubtful voters may remain trapped in prolonged proceedings before Foreigners’ Tribunals, leaving their rights in suspension.
Simultaneously, the burden of proof has shifted from the State to individuals.
Aadhaar is treated as proof of residence, Voter ID as evidence of electoral registration, and passports merely as travel documents, making it increasingly difficult to establish citizenship conclusively….
