Introduction:
The Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri has held that where a person’s citizenship is under challenge, the issue must first be resolved before any direction can be issued to process a passport application. The decision came in Sirajul Shekh v. Union of India & Ors., decided by Justice Kausik Chanda.
The petitioner approached the High Court after his passport application was kept on hold following the deletion of his name from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). His name had been removed through a Supplementary Deletion List dated March 27, 2026, and he had already filed a statutory appeal before the SIR Appellate Tribunal challenging that deletion. Meanwhile, suffering from a gastrointestinal ailment and claiming the need for medical treatment abroad, the petitioner applied for a Tatkaal passport. However, the Passport Seva Kendra placed the application on hold after seeking his original voter identity card, which he could not produce because of the deletion of his electoral entry.
The writ petition sought directions to the passport authorities to process his application and also requested an expeditious hearing of his pending appeal before the SIR Appellate Tribunal.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that the passport authorities had acted arbitrarily by insisting upon the production of a voter identity card. It was contended that neither the Passports Act, 1967 nor the Passports Rules, 1980 makes a voter identity card a mandatory document where the applicant is otherwise able to establish identity, address, and date of birth through other valid documents.
The petitioner further submitted that deletion of a person’s name from the electoral roll does not amount to a final declaration that the individual is not an Indian citizen. Since his statutory appeal against the deletion was already pending before the competent appellate authority, the passport application should not have been withheld solely on that basis. Considering his medical condition and the urgency of obtaining treatment abroad, he requested the Court to direct the passport authorities to keep his application alive until the appeal was decided. He also sought an early disposal of the pending appeal.
The respondents opposed the relief sought, maintaining that the petitioner’s citizenship status had become a disputed issue after the deletion of his name from the electoral roll. Until the competent authority examined and decided the pending appeal, no direction could be issued requiring the passport authorities to process the application.
Court’s Judgment:
The High Court declined to grant any interim relief in relation to the passport application. Justice Kausik Chanda observed that the issue of the petitioner’s citizenship lay at the heart of the dispute and would necessarily have to be determined before the Court could issue any direction regarding the grant or processing of a passport.
The Court held that since the petitioner’s challenge to the deletion of his name from the electoral roll was already pending before the SIR Appellate Tribunal, it would not be appropriate to interfere at this stage by directing the passport authorities to process or preserve his passport application. The Bench considered the pending statutory proceedings to be the proper forum for resolving the underlying dispute.
During the hearing, the Court also expressed concern over the large number of cases pending before the SIR Appellate Tribunal and remarked that, considering the existing pendency, disposal of all appeals could potentially take an extraordinarily long period. Recognising the importance of timely adjudication, the Court requested the appellate authority to take up the petitioner’s appeal at an early date.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of without granting any relief against the passport authorities. The Court confined its order to requesting the SIR Appellate Tribunal to hear and decide the petitioner’s appeal as expeditiously as possible. The ruling underscores that where citizenship itself is under consideration before a competent authority, courts are likely to await that determination before issuing directions concerning rights that are dependent upon citizenship status.