IndiaFormer Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur criticized the Ministry of External Affairs for stating that a passport is only a travel document and not proof of Indian citizenship, calling this a 'misreading' of the law. He argued that the Passports Act distinguishes between 'passport' and 'travel document,' implying they are separate entities. Lokur emphasized that the use of distinct terminology in the Act suggests that a passport should be recognized as proof of citizenship. He warned that the government's stance could lead to international complications since Indian embassies and consulates issue visas based on the assumption that passport holders are Indian citizens. The government defended its position by citing the Passports Act and past court rulings, which state that no single document definitively proves Indian citizenship.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both Justice Lokur's argument against the government's interpretation of the Passports Act and the government's counterarguments, including references to legal precedents. It does not exhibit overtly biased language or one-sided sourcing, providing a balanced view of the debate.
