Adverse Police Report Branding Applicant ‘Foreigner’ Cannot Override Statutory Citizenship By Birth Under Section 3(1)(a) Citizenship Act; Madras High Court Quashes Passport Rejection And Directs Issuance
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice P.T. Asha held that an adverse police report cannot defeat the statutory entitlement to citizenship by birth under the Citizenship Act where genuine documents establish birth in India, and directed the passport authority to reconsider and issue a passport to the applicant within a stipulated period. The matter concerned a man born in 1986 in Tamil Nadu to Sri Lankan parents whose passport application was rejected on the basis of an adverse police remark, and the Court concluded that, as his birth preceded the cut-off date in the Act, he is a citizen of India by birth.
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the passport authority to process his passport application submitted in February 2024. He stated that he was born in 1986 at a Government Hospital in Tiruchirappalli to parents who had come from Sri Lanka as refugees and were residing in a rehabilitation camp. He contended that, as he was born in India, he is a citizen by birth under Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and produced his birth certificate, school records and Aadhaar card, along with copies of judicial orders recognising citizenship by birth, after an objection was raised following an adverse police report describing him as “Suspect in Sri Lankan.”
The passport authority asserted that, despite verification of the genuineness of the birth certificate with the municipal corporation, the documents submitted were inadequate to establish Indian citizenship in view of the adverse report and the petitioner’s admission that his parents had migrated from Sri Lanka in 1983. The police authority maintained that the petitioner was a Sri Lankan national residing as a refugee in the camp and noted that a criminal case was pending against him. The petitioner’s counsel relied on Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act and a prior High Court decision holding that a person born in India before 1 July 1987 is a citizen by birth, while the Central Government’s counsel pointed out that the parents remained Sri Lankan nationals.
The Court recorded that the petitioner was born on 09.02.1986 at Tiruchirappalli and that his birth certificate had been verified with the competent authority, which confirmed its genuineness. It noted that “The date of birth is also reflected consistently in the petitioner’s SSLC and HSC mark sheets.”
The Court referred to Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and observed that “any person born in India on or after 25.01.1950 but before 01.07.1987 is a citizen of India by birth, irrespective of the nationality of the parents.” It stated that since the petitioner was born prior to the statutory cut-off date, “he is an Indian citizen by birth.”
The Court examined the adverse police report that described the petitioner as “Suspect in Sri Lankan” due to his parents' Sri Lankan nationality. It recorded that the first respondent had verified the authenticity of the petitioner's birth certificate, and the verification confirmed that the certificate was “true and genuine.” Despite this, the second respondent had reiterated the adverse report.
The Court stated that once citizenship by birth is established, the adverse remark cannot override the statutory right conferred by law. It held that “the adverse police report referring to his parents’ nationality cannot override the statutory right conferred by Section 3(1)(a).”
The Court also noted that the learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent had conceded that the petitioner, having been born before 01.07.1987, would be a citizen of India by birth even though his parents were Sri Lankan nationals.
After considering the records and submissions, the Court observed that the petitioner had produced authentic documents showing birth in India and that the genuineness of these documents had been independently verified. Therefore, the statutory framework governing citizenship by birth applied fully to his case.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to be issued a passport, as the requirements for establishing citizenship by birth had been fully satisfied and the adverse report had no legal basis to deny this statutory entitlement.
The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed that “the first respondent is directed to process and issue the passport to the petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. I. Romeo Roy Alfred, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Mr. S. Prakash, Government Advocate
Case Title: Gokuleswaran v. The Regional Passport Officer and Others
Case Number: W.P.(MD) No. 23811 of 2025
Bench: Justice P.T. Asha
