How long will poll panel, SC and MEA keep silent on citizenship and SIR?

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), which had informed former The Telegraph editor R. Rajagopal in writing that his passport could not be renewed because his name was not on the voters' list, later relented and renewed his passport.

However, as the former The Telegraph editor has pointed out, there is still no clarity on the legal position or the government's stand. Are people whose names have been deleted under SIR for reasons other than being infiltrators no longer considered Indian citizens and, on that basis, not entitled to a passport?

The government has stated that a passport is a travel document, not a citizenship certificate — a stand that has come under severe criticism. The Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Supreme Court are both on record as holding that citizenship, in the event of a dispute, can only be determined by the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the ECI or the MEA. The appellate tribunals set up in Kolkata to hear 27 lakh appeals against deletion from the voters' list have found that an overwhelming number of the deletions were wrongful.

Yet, the MEA did deny the former TT editor his passport and the Regional Passport Office could not have put it in writing unless they had received an instruction to that effect. Nor could the RPO have issued the passport to Rajagopal without an instruction from New Delhi. But the confusion persists and there has been no statement clarifying the government’s stand. In the absence of such clarity, even the courts are now refusing to intervene.

The Calcutta High Court's circuit bench at Jalpaiguri, on Tuesday this week, declined to grant relief to a petitioner whose passport application was kept on hold after his name was deleted from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), holding that the question of his citizenship would have to be decided first. Justice Kausik Chanda disposed of the writ petition by requesting the SIR Appellate Tribunal to take up the petitioner's pending appeal at an early date, but declined to issue any direction to the passport authorities to process or keep alive his passport application, reported Live Law.

The petitioner, Sirajul Shekh, who is suffering from a gastrointestinal ailment and requires medical treatment abroad applied for a Tatkaal passport on 26 May 2026. The following day, the Passport Seva Kendra placed his application on hold and sought production of his original voter identity card. The petitioner’s counsel argued that a voter identity card is not a mandatory document under the Passports Act, 1967 or the Passports Rules, 1980, where identity, address and date of birth are otherwise established.

During the hearing, the Court did comment on the pendency of matters before the SIR Appellate Tribunals and observed that, considering the volume of pending cases, disposal of appeals could take 21 years. The Court disposed of the writ petition by requesting the appellate authority to hear the petitioner's appeal at an early date.