Delhi High Court Declares Tibetan-Origin Dharamshala-Born Woman Indian Citizen By Birth, Orders Passport Issuance
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has declared a Tibetan-origin woman, born in Dharamshala in 1966, to be an Indian citizen by birth under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and directed that she be issued an Indian passport in accordance with law. The petition arose from the petitioner’s claim that, despite being born in India within the relevant statutory period, she was not being granted passport facilities by the concerned authorities. Allowing the plea, the Court recognised her entitlement to Indian citizenship by birth and granted the consequential relief of passport issuance.
The petition was filed by a person of Tibetan descent seeking recognition of Indian citizenship by birth and issuance of an Indian passport. The petitioner was born on 15 May 1966 in Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, and claimed citizenship under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. She relied on documentary evidence, including an Identity Certificate issued by Indian authorities recording her place of birth in India.
The petitioner migrated to Switzerland in 1997 for family reunification and was issued a Swiss “passport for foreigners” in 2009, valid until 2014. Upon expiry, Swiss authorities declined renewal, stating that she should obtain a national passport from her country of origin. Subsequent applications for foreign travel documents and recognition as a stateless person were rejected, with Swiss authorities repeatedly asserting that she was eligible to obtain Indian citizenship due to her birth in India.
The petitioner approached Indian authorities for renewal of identity certificates or issuance of an Indian passport, but no positive decision was communicated. The respondents contended that Tibetan refugees and their children constituted a distinct class governed by executive orders under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and that registration as a Tibetan refugee amounted to voluntary renunciation of citizenship. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, read with provisions concerning renunciation and termination of citizenship.
The Court examined Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and recorded that “Section 3(1)(a) of the Act very categorically provides that every person born in India on or after 26 January 1950 but before 1 July 1987 shall be a citizen of India by birth, except where the exclusions under Section 3(2) apply.”
On the petitioner’s eligibility, the Court observed that “the petitioner was born on 15.05.1966 at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, which squarely satisfies the requirement under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.” It recorded that “it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner suffers from any of the disqualifications contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Citizenship Act.”
Addressing the respondents’ reliance on executive orders regulating Tibetan refugees, the Court stated that “a statutory right conferred by Parliament cannot be defeated by executive instructions or inter-ministerial communications.” It observed that “no decision taken in an inter-ministerial meeting can override the express provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955.”
On the contention that registration as a Tibetan refugee amounted to renunciation, the Court observed that “there is no provision under the Citizenship Act which contemplates automatic or implied renunciation of citizenship merely on account of possession of an Identity Certificate.” The Court recorded that “renunciation of citizenship can occur only in the manner prescribed under Section 8 of the Act and not otherwise.”
Regarding termination of citizenship, the Court stated that “the provisions of Section 9 relating to termination of citizenship are attracted only where there is voluntary acquisition of citizenship of another country.” It observed that “the issuance of a ‘passport for aliens’ or a temporary travel document under Swiss law cannot be equated with acquisition of foreign citizenship.”
Relying on earlier decisions of the Delhi High Court, the Court recorded that “the issue stands conclusively settled by the judgments in Namgyal Dolkar, Phuntsok Wangyal and subsequent cases, which have been consistently followed.” It further noted that “the Election Commission of India has also clarified that children born to Tibetan refugees in India between the relevant dates are to be treated as Indian citizens under Section 3(1)(a).”
The Court directed that “the petitioner being a citizen of India by birth in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The petitioner is entitled to the issuance of an Indian passport in accordance with law. The present petition is allowed in the above terms.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Advocate, along with Mr. Siddhartha Goswami, Ms. Geetanjali Reddy and Mr. Aditya Sachdeva, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Singh, Central Government Standing Counsel, along with Ms. Ira Singh and Mr. Aryan Dhaka, Advocates
Case Title: Ms. Yangchen Drakmargyapon v. Union of India & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:831
Case Number: W.P.(C) 16380/2024
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
