Reacting to the government's position, Tharoor said the clarification had triggered a predictable wave of public bewilderment and political sparring. While the government has defended its stand by stating that it reflects a long-standing legal position under Section 20 of the Passports Act, 1967, which technically permits the issuance of passports to non-citizens under rare circumstances in the public interest, Tharoor argued that the distinction holds little meaning for ordinary citizens.
In a post on X, Tharoor stated that for decades the Indian passport has been regarded as the highest standard of identity. He pointed out that citizens undergo extensive police verification and document scrutiny before obtaining a passport because the government requires concrete proof of citizenship before issuing one. Declaring that such a rigorously verified document does not establish citizenship, he argued, creates an absurd legal paradox. He questioned what document would conclusively establish citizenship if the passport itself does not.
A government source responded by stating that the legal position was neither a recent decision nor a policy introduced under the Narendra Modi government. The source said it had never been the case that an Indian passport served as conclusive proof of citizenship.
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…
— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) June 26, 2026
Tharoor called for an urgent legislative overhaul to end what he described as an unnecessary controversy. He urged the government to amend the legal framework so that both the passport and the Aadhaar card become valid and conclusive proof of Indian citizenship unless they are explicitly cancelled or withdrawn by the state.
He acknowledged that implementing such a policy would require resolving a significant administrative challenge because Aadhaar is currently issued on the basis of 182 days of residence in India rather than nationality. As a result, Aadhaar is held by both Indian citizens and non-citizen residents.
To address this issue, Tharoor proposed that the Unique Identification Authority of India should introduce a visually distinct Aadhaar card specifically for non-citizens residing in India. He suggested that the non-citizen version could feature a visible diagonal red stripe across the front, allowing authorities to clearly distinguish it from the standard Aadhaar card issued to citizens.
According to Tharoor, such a distinction would enable the government to make it mandatory for every Indian national to carry either a standard citizen's Aadhaar card or a valid Indian passport as sufficient proof of citizenship at all times. He argued that this dual-document policy would simplify domestic identity verification, eliminate arbitrary bureaucratic disputes during electoral roll revisions, and provide every Indian with absolute legal certainty regarding identity and citizenship.
Amid the continuing controversy, the Ministry of External Affairs on Thursday published a Gazette notification dated June 20 announcing an increase in the application fee for an ordinary fresh passport containing 36 pages. The fee has been raised from Rs 1,500 to Rs 2,500.
The controversy has intensified the debate over the legal status of identity documents in India, placing renewed focus on the distinction between proof of identity and proof of citizenship while prompting calls for legislative clarity and administrative reforms.
About The Author
Comment List