New Delhi, Jun 25 (PTI) The BJP on Thursday asserted that the government has not introduced any new rule regarding passports, saying the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has merely reiterated a long-settled legal position that a passport alone is not conclusive proof of Indian citizenship.

The ruling party cited the Passports Act, 1967, and judicial rulings, including a 2013 Bombay High Court judgment, to contend that citizenship is determined under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and not by the possession of any single document.

The remarks came after a political controversy erupted over the MEA’s assertion that an Indian passport is primarily a travel document and not, by itself, proof of citizenship.

BJP IT department head Amit Malviya attacked the opposition, describing them as the “kagaz nahin dikhayenge” brigade and accusing them of sensationalising a settled legal position for political reasons.

“The MEA has not announced a new policy. It has merely reiterated a settled legal position,” Malviya said on X.

He said Indian courts have repeatedly held that a passport is not conclusive proof of citizenship and cited the Bombay High Court’s 2013 judgment, saying the principle has been reaffirmed subsequently.

“Citizenship is determined under the Citizenship Act, 1955, based on eligibility and supporting evidence, not by the mere possession of a single document,” he said.

Malviya said citizenship in India is established through a combination of records, including birth certificates, parents’ citizenship records where relevant, school records, electoral roll entries, government service records, land and residence records, passports and other contemporaneous official documents.

Citing the Passports Act, 1967, he said the law itself empowers the Central government, in specified circumstances, to issue a passport or travel document even to a non-citizen.

“The law itself therefore recognises that possession of a passport cannot, by definition, be treated as conclusive proof of citizenship,” he said.

“This distinction is neither unusual nor controversial. A passport is an important identity and travel document. It is evidence that may support a claim of citizenship. But citizenship itself flows from the Constitution and the Citizenship Act, not from the possession of any single government-issued document,” he said.

“The outrage is not over a new rule. It is over a legal position that has long been settled by both statute and the courts,” Malviya added.