Justice C. Saravanan, Madras High Court
Overwhelming Records Indicate She Was Born In India & Has Been Residing Here: Madras High Court Quashes MEA Order Denying Certificate Of Identity To A Woman
|The Petition before the Madras High Court was filed for the issuance of a Writ seeking quashing of the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the Section Officer.
The Madras High Court has quashed an order by Ministry of External Affairs denying issuance of Certificate of Identity to a woman observing that there are overwhelming records indicating that she was born in India and was issued a Birth Certificate by the Executive Officer.
The Petition before the High Court was filed for the issuance of a Writ seeking quashing of the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the Section Officer. A direction was also sought from the Official respondents to issue a passport to the petitioner in terms of Section 20 of the Passport Act, 1967.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Saravanan stated, “Further, the overwhelming records indicate that the petitioner was born in India and has been residing in India. The petitioner has also been issued an Aadhaar Card by the Government of India. There are no records to indicate that the petitioner travelled from Sri Lanka or that she illegally entered India after she was purportedly born in Sri Lanka.”
Advocate I. Romeo Roy Alfred represented the Petitioner, while Deputy Solicitor General of India R.K. Govindarajan represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in the year 2022, challenging the order whereby the petitioner's application for issuance of a passport was rejected. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, and in light of the directions issued, the petitioner applied for a fresh travel document, which culminated in the impugned communication/order issued by the Section Officer (PSP–III), Ministry of External Affairs. The challenge to the impugned communication/order was primarily on the ground that it was passed without allowing the petitioner an opportunity to the petitioner.
Arguments
It was the petitioner’s case that she was born in India at the Government Hospital and her parents were residing in the refugee camp at Rayanoor, Thanthonimalai, Karur District. It was further submitted that the petitioner's parents are Sri Lankan Nationals and that the petitioner does not hold citizenship in Sri Lanka. The petitioner proposed to travel abroad in connection with her education. However, the Officer had neither issued a passport nor a travel document.
It was the case of the respondents that the petitioner is neither a citizen of India nor entitled to a travel document under Section 20 of the Passport Act, 1967. It was submitted that the matter was referred to the local police for verification, and that the police verification report was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Karur, stating that the petitioner is not an Indian citizen and was born in Sri Lanka.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that there were overwhelming records available to indicate that the petitioner was born in India and was issued a Birth Certificate by the Executive Officer, Thanthoni Town Panchayat, Karur. The petitioner studied in Schools in Karur and pursued her undergraduate degree at Michael Job College of Arts and Science for Women, affiliated to Bharathiar University.
“The impugned order, which is apparently based on internal discussions within the Department, has not taken into consideration all these aspects. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent is liable to be quashed”, the Bench held.
The Bench thus disposed of the petition by remitting the case back to the Section Officer to reconsider the same, after obtaining a fresh report from the police.
Cause Title: Harinaa v. The Regional Passport Officer (Case No.: W.P.(MD) No.12703 of 2024)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate I. Romeo Roy Alfred
Respondent: Deputy Solicitor General of India R.K. Govindarajan