RANJAN SOLOMON, Maina-Curtorim
A passport has long been regarded as the highest official affirmation of an individual's membership in a nation. Issued only after scrutiny by government authorities, it enables international travel, diplomatic protection, and recognition by foreign governments. It is therefore deeply unsettling that the Indian state now suggests that a passport may not constitute conclusive proof of citizenship.
The government's distinction between nationality, identity and citizenship may have legal nuances. It argues that a passport can be cancelled if it was obtained through fraud and therefore cannot be treated as irrefutable evidence in every citizenship dispute. While this may be technically defensible in exceptional cases, extending this logic into public policy has disturbing consequences.
If a passport, issued after police verification and extensive documentation, is no longer considered reliable proof of citizenship, what confidence can citizens place in any state-issued document? The burden of uncertainty is shifted from the government, which issued the passport, onto the individual, who must now continually prove their belonging. Such reasoning erodes the principle of legal certainty that underpins every constitutional democracy.
This approach is particularly troubling in a country where millions struggle with incomplete documentation due to poverty, displacement, natural disasters, bureaucratic errors or historical exclusion. For vulnerable communities, the message is chilling: even possession of the Republic's most internationally recognised document may not shield them from suspicion.
The implications extend beyond legal technicalities. A passport embodies the relationship between the citizen and the State. It is a declaration by the Republic that the bearer belongs to India. Weakening that assurance diminishes public trust in institutions and fuels anxieties about arbitrary administrative power. Citizens should not live in fear that official documents issued by the government itself may later be declared inadequate.
A constitutional democracy must strive to reduce uncertainty, not institutionalise it. If errors occur in issuing passports, the responsibility lies primarily with the authorities responsible for verification, not with citizens who relied in good faith on government certification. The solution is stronger administrative accountability, not weaker citizenship guarantees.
When the State casts doubt on its own most authoritative documents, it risks undermining confidence in the very institutions upon which democratic citizenship depends. In doing so, it weakens not merely a passport, but the bond of trust between the Republic and its people.
