The Madras High Court has expressed frustration over bureaucratic inertia surrounding a stateless woman's passport application, noting the “overwhelming” volume of records required by authorities and the systemic failure to process her claim. The petitioner, a 54-year-old woman born in Tamil Nadu, applied for a passport under the Tatkal scheme after an order in her name was returned by passport authorities due to alleged deficiencies in documentation. Despite having resided in India throughout her life, she has been treated as stateless due to lack of formally recognized proof of nationality and denial of citizenship by the country of her birth.
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel explained that her earlier passport application was issued but subsequently dispatched back by the Regional Passport Office, prompting her to reapply. The court scrutinized this process and questioned the logic behind demanding a fresh barrage of documents when substantial records already existed in public offices. Chief Justice M. Duraiswamy commented that agencies had become fixated on technicalities, demanding paperwork ad infinitum, rather than relying on available official records.
The court observed that government registries contained ample evidence of her birth, residence, and identification—records that should suffice to establish her nationality. Rather than conducting an on-camera testimonial or an affidavit, authorities insisted on external proofs often unavailable to someone in her socio-economic situation. Notably, she held several public documents, including ration card, Census entry, and voter list entry, all of which were backed by jurisdictional data, and yet the passport application remained in limbo.
The bench criticized the government’s reluctance to issue the passport, highlighting that the petitioner had been arbiterily labeled stateless after decades of residency, effectively denying her fundamental rights associated with identity and freedom of movement. It stressed that a person who has lived in India their entire life should not have to undergo unduly burdensome documentation processes to prove citizenship. The court repeatedly pressed the authorities to explain why existing records—confirmed in court—could not be accepted as valid proof.
In response, state agencies acknowledged that the petitioner’s documents were indeed in government custody and could be accessed if required. The court emphasized that in the digital era, persistent demands for physical documents from vulnerable applicants only served to deny justice. Chief Justice Duraiswamy underscored that procedural guidelines must adapt to evidence already in possession, especially when the records are government-generated and verified.
The High Court directed that the Direct Passports Officer shall consider the prior application and pre-existing official records to immediately process and issue the passport. It ordered the compliance report to be filed by passport authorities within a short timeframe. The court also instructed respondents to simplify the identity verification framework for persons with limited means and barred indefinite postponement of statutory obligations under the guise of missing documentation. The petition itself remains pending and is listed for further hearing to ensure implementation of these directions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.