If passport isn't proof, what makes you an Indian citizen?

Satish Gupta never imagined he would one day question something as fundamental as his citizenship. Born in Uttar Pradesh, the 62-year-old has voted in every election since he turned 18. He retired from a government department after nearly three decades of service. He has a PAN card, an Aadhaar card, a voter ID and a passport that has taken him to Singapore, Dubai and London. His taxes are up to date, his pension arrives in his bank account every month, and his grandchildren often joke that he has more government-issued documents than they do.

So when he read reports that the Union government had told a court that a passport is not conclusive proof of citizenship, he was stunned. “If my passport doesn’t prove I am an Indian, then what does?” Gupta wondered.

It is a question millions of Indians probably never imagined they would have to ask.

The recent clarification by the ministry of external affairs before the Bombay High Court that a passport is essentially a travel document and not definitive proof of citizenship has exposed a little-known reality about India’s legal framework: despite being home to more than 1.4 billion people, the country still has no single, universally accepted document that conclusively establishes Indian citizenship. The controversy has also revived an old, unfinished idea—issuing multipurpose national identity cards (MNICs).

Unlike many countries that issue a dedicated citizenship certificate or national identity document, India relies on a patchwork of records. A passport, Aadhaar, voter ID, birth certificate, domicile certificate, school records, naturalisation papers and electoral rolls all serve different purposes. None of them, by itself, conclusively answers every legal question relating to citizenship.

A passport is issued under the Passports Act, 1967, after authorities verify identity, antecedents and nationality. Yet legally, its primary purpose is to facilitate international travel. It was never intended to function as a permanent certificate of citizenship.

Similarly, Aadhaar is perhaps India’s most widely used identity document, but Parliament made its position clear while enacting the Aadhaar Act. It establishes identity and residence—not citizenship.

A voter identity card confirms that a person’s name appears on the electoral roll. It establishes voting eligibility, not nationality. Even birth certificates may not always be conclusive because citizenship by birth depends upon the law applicable at the time of birth and, for those born after the amendments of 1987 and 2004, the citizenship status of their parents.

For constitutional lawyers, these distinctions are well understood. For ordinary Indians, they came as a surprise.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who represented the Election Commission before the Supreme Court in the special intensive revision case told THE WEEK that there has never been a single document under the Constitution or the Citizenship Act that conclusively establishes citizenship.

According to Dwivedi, citizenship is determined by law rather than by possession of one document. It may be established through birth, descent, registration, naturalisation or a citizenship certificate issued by the government of India. He pointed out that while the Election Commission may accept documents such as passports for electoral purposes, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that findings of electoral authorities on citizenship are not final. In his view, the absence of a nationwide National Register of Citizens has contributed to the recurring uncertainty. “A nationwide NRC should eventually be implemented to bring clarity and end these recurring controversies,” Dwivedi said.

India once came close to creating one definitive proof of citizenship. Following amendments to the Citizenship Act and the framing of the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government launched an ambitious pilot project to issue NRC-backed MNICs.

The project was implemented in selected districts, particularly in border areas where concerns over illegal migration were significant. Between 2003 and 2009, nearly 13 lakh citizenship cards were issued under the pilot exercise. The aim was to ultimately give every Indian citizen a government-issued identity card certifying citizenship, backed by a national register. Officials believed such a system would simplify administration, strengthen border management and eliminate disputes over legal status.

But the project never moved beyond the pilot stage. The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance, which assumed office in 2004, gradually shifted its focus from identifying citizens to identifying residents. That philosophy culminated in the launch of Aadhaar in 2009 under the Unique Identification Authority of India.

Unlike the proposed citizenship card, Aadhaar was designed as an identity programme where every eligible resident, not just citizens, could enrol. The objective was efficient delivery of welfare, financial inclusion and digital governance, not the determination of nationality.

As Aadhaar expanded into the world’s largest biometric identity programme, the earlier citizenship card project quietly disappeared from public discourse. “Between 2003 and 2009, nearly 13 lakh national identity cards were issued after detailed household verification,” a senior official who was part of the project in 2005 told THE WEEK. “The exercise demonstrated that citizenship verification is a complex administrative process requiring field verification, scrutiny of documents, local inquiries and an opportunity for claims and objections.”

According to the official, the National Population Register and the National Register of Citizens, though often conflated, are actually legally distinct. “The NPR is a register of usual residents, irrespective of citizenship, while the NRC is intended to identify Indian citizens,” said the official. “Under the 2003 rules, the data collected through the NPR could be verified before preparation of the NRC, but the two are separate exercises governed by different objectives and procedures. Similarly, the census is conducted under a different statute altogether and serves an entirely different purpose.”

A nationwide NRC would require a clear statutory framework, transparent procedures, administrative preparedness and adequate safeguards for individuals. “Such an exercise cannot be undertaken arbitrarily or completed overnight,” the official said.

Former chief election commissioner S.Y. Quraishi believes the original idea of issuing MNICs deserves another look. “It should not be imposed overnight or pushed down the throats of citizens,” he told THE WEEK. “There should be a clear roadmap spread over four or five years so that genuine citizens do not suffer because of administrative shortcomings.”

Successive governments retained the legal framework created in 2003. The citizenship rules continue to provide for the preparation of an NRC, but the larger ambition of issuing every citizen a dedicated citizenship card has never been revived.

India may have reached a stage where such a reform has become administratively necessary. Almost every interaction between citizens and the state—from opening bank accounts and filing income tax returns to purchasing property and obtaining welfare benefits—now depends upon identity verification. A universally recognised citizenship document could remove the confusion of different departments insisting on different combinations of records.

According to B.K. Prasad, former additional secretary (foreigners) in the ministry of home affairs, the Constitution identified citizens at the commencement of the republic, but it did not envisage issuing a citizenship document to every Indian. “In the absence of a universal citizenship card, authorities often rely on multiple documents and surrounding evidence,” he said. “No single document—be it a passport, voter ID or school certificate—is legally conclusive proof of citizenship.”

Senior advocate Aman Lekhi said the current controversy risked creating unnecessary confusion. According to him, a passport unquestionably possesses substantial evidentiary value in proving citizenship. “A passport may not be conclusive proof in every legal proceeding, but that is very different from saying it has no value. It remains a relevant and admissible document unless there are specific reasons to doubt its validity,” he told THE WEEK.

Lekhi argued that the present debate wrongly treats passports as though they are legally insignificant. “If one government document after another is discounted, citizens are left wondering whether any official document can ultimately be relied upon. That weakens the documentary framework instead of strengthening it,” he said.

The controversy has revived memories of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests. Though the CAA itself did not require existing Indian citizens to prove their citizenship, it created a faster pathway to citizenship for persecuted minorities belonging to six religious communities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who entered India before the prescribed cut-off date.

Many feared that if the CAA were combined with a nationwide NRC, those unable to produce documentary proof of citizenship could face exclusion while certain communities would benefit from the protections available under the amended law. Even though the government repeatedly maintained that there was no immediate plan to implement a nationwide NRC, protests erupted across university campuses, cities and neighbourhoods.

That history continues to shape today’s debate as India prepares for its long-delayed census, which is expected to be followed by an update of the NPR. Under the citizenship rules, the NPR is one stage in a broader administrative framework linked to the preparation of NRC. Whether that framework will eventually be activated remains uncertain.

Yet the legal architecture remains in place, and the passport controversy has once again drawn attention to it. Ultimately, the debate is no longer about passports. It is about the nature of citizenship itself. Whether policymakers ultimately revive the abandoned MNIC project, move towards a nationwide NRC or devise an entirely new system, one reality has become impossible to ignore: for all its digital identity infrastructure, India still cannot answer a simple question with a single document—who is an Indian citizen?