Tibetans are Indians. The High Courts of Karnataka and Delhi, have held that a Tibetan refugee, born in India to Tibetan parents from January 26, 1950 to July 1, 1987, would as a right be entitled to citizenship by birth under The Citizenship Act (CA). The Courts rejected the contention of Union of India that such Tibetan refugees born in India, are said to have “renounced” their Indian citizenship acquired by birth. Holding of Tibetan identity certificates does not amount to renunciation of Indian citizenship. Following the mandate of the Supreme Court, that no Indian citizen could be denied a passport, except on specified grounds, it has been held, that Indian passports cannot be denied to such Tibetans born in India in the said period.
Reportedly, more than 1.5 lacs Tibetan refugees had taken shelter in India for an indefinite period following the footsteps of the 14th Dalai Lama in 1959. By a policy decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs, a Tibetan national who entered India after 1959, could not be granted Indian citizenship by naturalisation under CA, which is a law to provide for the acquisition and determination of Indian citizenship. Such Tibetan nationals in India possess Tibetan identity certificates in lieu of passports, which are issued by Central Tibetan Administration running in exile in India. These certificates are required to be surrendered to the nearest Indian passport issuing authority, upon acquisition of Indian citizenship and passports, by any of the modes prescribed in CA.
The Passports Act, 1967, is a law to provide for the issue of passports and travel documents. Travel documents can be issued under this law to “stateless” persons resident in India, including Tibetan refugees, as such documents issued under the authority of the Government of a foreign country, are also recognised under this law. CA, was amended in 1986, to provide Indian citizenship to persons born in India between January 26, 1950 and July 1, 1987. This was to confer citizenship status acquired by birth, as a matter of right, without requiring any such person to make an application for Indian citizenship. Hence, in view of the above judgments, it has now been decided by the Courts, that in the case of Tibetan refugees born in India during this period, irrespective of the fact that they held Tibetan identity certificates, they could not be denied Indian Passports on grounds of being Tibetan nationals. The Courts held that, Tibetan refugees under CA, were entitled to Indian citizenship, even though they held Tibetan identity certificates, and are automatically considered as citizens by birth in India, without a declaration or an application under CA.
The reasoning adopted by the Courts is laudable. The ostensible grounds for rejection of an Indian passport under the Passports Act, on the ground that such persons are not citizens of India, and that because they are not “Indian nationals” under CA, were duly analysed by the Courts. It was observed that the concept of “nationality” does not have legislative recognition in CA. Ministry of External Affairs treats Tibetans as “Stateless” persons. Tibetan “Identity Certificates” recognise the description of travel documents within the meaning of the Passports Act, whose absence would render Tibetans facing the prospect of being deported. The Courts have held that the holding of a Tibetan “identity certificate” or a declaration in an application form that the applicant was a Tibetan national, would not constitute valid grounds to refuse an Indian passport.
The Courts further held that the policy decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs not to grant Indian citizenship by naturalisation to Tibetans who entered India after 1959, is not relevant to Tibetan refugees born in India between January 26, 1950 and July 1, 1987, as such persons are Indian citizens by birth under CA. Possessing any “identity certificate”, answering the description of a Tibetan national, and registration under the Registration of Foreigners Act, does not amount to waiver of the right to be recognised as an Indian citizen by birth, and will not amount to renunciation of Indian citizenship under CA.
The Passports Act enjoins that a person is eligible to hold only one passport or travel document. An “identity certificate” answering the description of a travel document, would clearly have to be relinquished, upon the issue of an Indian passport. This, therefore, per se cannot constitute valid grounds to refuse issuance of an Indian passport. Hence, prior surrender of the “identity certificate”, rendering a stateless person without a travel document, would not legitimately amount to a disqualification for an Indian Passport. However, subsequent surrender of the “identity certificate”, upon issuance of an Indian passport, is necessary for compliance of the Passports Act.
The choice of the Tibetan youth refugees to amalgamate and merge in a land of their new birth, by their independent conscious decisions deserves to be respected and honoured. Opening of windows to balance citizenship rights, expressed in a democratic set up with progressive modern life standards, for aspiring to achieve new professional avenues gained in a cosmopolitan environment, reflects the true spirit of globalisation. Second and third generation Tibetan diaspora, may now also no longer harbour feelings of living in exile in their new home land of birth. They find expression of their identity by adorning a new habitat, offering opportunities of higher educational facilities, vocational training and an ultimate economic prosperity. The winds of change under the view propounded by the judicial umbrella only furthers, aids and assists such denizens in rehabilitating themselves in a land of their choice. The vibrant interpretations of their rights echo, resound and resonate constructively in times today.
Comments