Utkarsh Jain vs Union Of India And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1071/2026
Date of Decision: 08.05.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
UTKARSH JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashant Joshi, Mr. Ashwani
Kumar Sharma, Mr. Pramod Kumar,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr.
Devashish Kumar , Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition is filed for following reliefs:
“a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction, commanding the Respondents to forthwith
quash and/or withdraw the Look-Out Circular/Immigration Alert issued
against the Petitioner, Mr. Utkarsh Jain, holder of Indian Passport No. V
6112659;
b) Issue a further writ, order, or direction commanding the Respondents
to permit the Petitioner to travel abroad freely and without any
obstruction, restraint, or adverse immigration action, in view of the
confirmed validity of his passport and absence of any lawful impediment;
c) Pass any other and further order which this Hon‟ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, be passed
in favour of the parties in the interest of justice.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
2. The petitioner, an Indian citizen by birth and a cricketer by
profession, was stopped and offloaded at Indira Gandhi International
Airport, Delhi („IGI Airport‟) , on 29.10.2025, while travelling abroad, on
the ground that he holds dual nationality.
3. The Petitioner was alleged to have conscious possession of passports
issued by two different sovereign states. One being the Cambodian Passport
(N1929299), and the other being an Indian Passport (V6112659).
4. In or around early 2023, the Cricket Federation of Cambodia
(“Federation”) invited the Petitioner, along with other Indian cricketers, to
travel to Cambodia for cricket training in preparation for the Southeast
Asian Games 2023 (“SEA Games”) , scheduled to take place in Cambodia
between 05.05.2023 to 17.05.2023.
5. Letter dated 08.03.2023 was issued by the Federation under the
signature of Mr. Manish Sharma, CEO, Federation, certifying that the
Petitioner will be travelling to Cambodia on Indian passport No. V6112659
for SEA Games.
6. It is an uncontroverted stand of the Petitioner that all logistical, visa,
and administrative formalities during his stay in Cambodia, including the
processing of any documentation required for such purposes, were handled
entirely and solely by the Federation and relevant sports management
working under the Federation’s aegis on behalf of all the visiting players.
7. The Petitioner has, at all material times, consistently, categorically
and on affidavit maintained that he never applied for, sought to, or
participated in any process for the acquisition of Cambodian citizenship, a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Cambodian passport, or any other travel document of the Kingdom of
Cambodia in his individual capacity.
8. It is his stand that he subscribed to no oath of allegiance to Cambodia,
underwent no process of naturalisation, or registration, steps outlined by the
1
Law on Nationality, 1996 , and at no instance formed any intention of
acquiring the citizenship of any foreign state.
9. Upon conclusion of the SEA Games, a letter by the Secretary General,
National Olympic Committee of Cambodia (“NOCC”) , dated 11.07.2025,
was issued in collaboration with the General Department of Identification of
the Kingdom of Cambodia (“NOCC Cancellation Certificate”) , hereinafter
read as:-
Subject: Confirmation of Confiscation and Cancellation of Passport
This is to certify that the National Olympic Committee of Cambodia
(NOCC), in official collaboration with the General Department of
Identification of the Kingdom of Cambodia, confirms that the following
individuals listed below have surrendered their Cambodian passport and
their passport have been cancelled respectively. This action was
conducted under administrative procedures in accordance with
Cambodian law and regulations.
The following individuals are no longer in possession of their
Cambodian passports, which have been officially surrendered to the
Cambodian authorities:
No. Name Gender Passport No.
1 LAKSHIT CUPTA M N1929296
2 SALVIN STAlY M N1929293
3 UTKARSH JAIN M N1929299
4 UDAY SING HATHINJAR M N1929297
5 SAHAJ CHADHA M N1929238
6 RAM RAUSHAN SHARAN M N1929301
7 SHARWAN GODARA M N1929302
1
1996 Law on Nationality, Cambodia (NS/RKM/0896/02).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
This letter serves as official confirmation of the cancellation of the
above-listed passports. The named individuals are no longer in
possession of a Cambodian Passport, and these documents have been
withheld by the Cambodian authorities as part of administrative and
regulatory compliance.
10. Prior to the receipt of the NOCC Cancellation certificate, RPO, Delhi
issued a Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) dated 17.06.2025 against the
Petitioner alleging that:-
You may recall that passport no. V6112659 was issued by this office on
01.02.2022 on the basis of passport application form supported with
documents and declaration furnished thereon. It has come to notice of this
office that you are also in the possession of Cambodian passport/
nationality.
Therefore, you are advised to submit your passport in original before this
office
immediately as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the
Passports Act, 1967 within 15 days of receipt of this letter. In absence of
compliance to this notice within stipulated time this office will presume
that you have no reasons to dispute the proposed act and necessary action
as deemed fit in this regard will be taken u/s 10(3)(g) of The Passports
Act, 1967,
If you want to represent your case in person, you may call upon the
undersigned within 15 days of receipt of this letter to you on any working
day between 10.00 AM to 01.00 PM.
11. Petitioner, in compliance with the SCN, filed a detailed representation
before the RPO dated 27.06.2025. Upon scrutiny and verification, the RPO
recorded an official notation on the inquiry form on 29.10.2025 in the
following terms- “PV clear, Passport valid as per our system record”.
12. Therefore, the proceedings initiated under the SCN were concluded
without any adverse finding against the Petitioner and with an affirmation of
the validity of the Petitioner’s Indian Passport, by the authority competent to
determine the same under the Passports Act, 1967.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
13. Notwithstanding the clean and affirmative finding recorded by RPO.
Petitioner, in October 2025, was intercepted by the officials of the Bureau of
Immigration at the IGI Airport on the ground that an active LOC was
registered against his name in the immigration database on account of being
alleged to possess dual nationality.
14. Foreign Regional Registration Office (“FRRO”) , Respondent No.2 in
its Counter Affidavit raised two principal objections: First, that the mail
address [email protected] , from which the Royal Embassy of
Cambodia had sent its confirmation on 04.11.2025, was not the officially
listed diplomatic email address of the Embassy. The mail is extracted as
under:-
“Dear Mr. Utkarsh,
Thank you for approaching us. We would like to confirm that the
document No. 192 N.O.C.C dated 11 July 2025 regarding Cambodian
passport cancellation is genuine.
Regards,
Royal Embassy of Cambodia A-l /309, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi -
110029 Tel: (91) 11 41717136-37”
15. Second, that the NOCC was not the appropriate authority to certify or
decide over the validity of Cambodian Passports. Importantly, Para 15 of the
Respondents Counter Affidavit stated that:-
“ That it is respectfully stated that the verification of cancellation of the
Cambodian Passport of the Petitioner is actively being perused by this
office from the Royal Embassy of Cambodia through official channels .
Any decision upon the adverse entry in the record of the Petitioner can
only be taken after official confirmation from the Concerned
Embassy ”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
16. Cambodian Embassy in its response dated 27.03.2026 from its official
diplomatic email address [email protected] confirmed,
unequivocally and in clear terms, that the email address used for
communication dated 04.11.2025 is an authorised email address of the
Royal Embassy of Cambodia for receiving and sending confirmations and
acknowledgements.
17. Additionally, that the NOCC Cancellation Certificate No. 192/NOCC
dated 11.07.2025 is genuine and authentic. A copy of this communication
was also marked to the FRRO at [email protected] . Communication dated
27.03.2026 is extracted as under:-
“Dear Mr. Utkarsh
This is to confirm that the email ID [email protected] is an
authorized email address used by the Royal Embassy of Cambodia for
receiving/ sending confirmations and acknowledgments. Once again, We
would like to confirm that the document No. 192 N.O.C.C dated 11 July
2025 regarding Cambodian passport cancellation is genuine.
Regards,
Royal Embassy of Cambodia A-1/309, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi -
110029 Tel: (91) 11 41717136-37”
18. It is the Respondents’ case that India does not recognize dual
nationality; therefore, in terms of power conferred to the Central
Government through FRRO and Bureau of Immigration. The authorities are
in power to regulate immigration in India which is the sovereign function of
the department. The reference to Section 3 of the Immigration and
Foreigners Act, 2025 has been made.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
19. Adjudicating over the subject matter involved requires inquiry into
the constitutional and statutory framework that governs the question of dual
citizenship in India, and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence that regulate
and influence the outcome of such questions.
20. The Indian Constitution is based upon the principle of single
citizenship. Part II of the Constitution (Article 5-11) governs citizenship
exclusively. During the deliberations of Constituent assembly, a proposal by
Prof. K.T. Shah advocating the grant of dual citizenship was advanced
before the Assembly.
21. Upon due consideration and deliberation, the proposal was rejected on
the caution presented by Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar against the
international consequences and that the commitment to the Indian State must
be unambiguous. Resultantly, an informed constitutional choice was made in
favour of single citizenship, a choice that finds its expression in the text of
Article 9:-
“No person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of Article 5, or be deemed
to be a citizen of India by virtue of Article 6 or Article 8, if he has
voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State.”
22. Two features of Article 9 are of cardinal importance in the
adjudication of issues involving dual citizenship. First, the word
„voluntarily‟ is not merely surplusage; it is the operative constitutional
threshold that provides force and character to the constitutional intent.
2
Second, the Supreme Court in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act
2
2024 INSC 789.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
provided that Article 9, when read in its proper constitutional context, is
intended to operate with reference to the commencement of the Constitution.
23. The legal regime governing the termination of Indian citizenship
derives its authority not from Article 9 alone, but from the legislative power
conferred upon Parliament by Article 11 of the Constitution, which provides
for:-
" Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the
power of the Parliament to make any provision with respect to the
acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to
citizenship."
24. Citizenship Act, 1955 (“the Act”) was enacted under the plenary
powers conferred by Article 11 read with Entry 17 of List I (Union List) of
the Seventh Schedule, which grants Parliament an exclusive jurisdiction
over Citizenship, Naturalisation, and aliens.
25. Section 9 of the Act is the statutory provision governing the
termination of Indian Citizenship on account of the acquisition of citizenship
of a foreign state. Section 9(1) and (2) are extracted as under:-
"Section 9(1): Any citizen of India who by naturalisation, registration or
otherwise voluntarily acquires, or has at any time between the 26th
January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act, voluntarily acquired,
the citizenship of another country shall, upon such acquisition or, as the
case may be, such commencement, cease to be a citizen of India."
"Section 9(2): If any question arises as to whether, when or how any
citizen of India has acquired the citizenship of another country, it shall be
determined by such authority, in such manner, and having regard to such
rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf."
26. The Procedure under Section 9(2) of the Act is governed by the
Citizenship Rules, 2009 (“2009 Rules”) . Rule 40 of the 2009 Rules is the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
pivotal provision over the issue of dual nationality, which is extracted as
under:-
"Rule 40. Determination of questions as to the acquisition of citizenship of
another country.
(1) For the purpose of sub-section (2) of section 9, the Central
Government may determine the issues as to whether, when or how any
citizen of India has acquired the citizenship of another country.
(2) The Central Government, while determining any such issues, shall
have due regard to the rules of procedure specified in Schedule III."
27. In addition to Rule 40, Schedule III to the 2009 Rules prescribe rules
of procedure and evidence applicable to the issue of determination raised
under Rule 40. The relevant provisions of Schedule III are extracted as
under:-
"Rule 1: The burden of proving that the citizen of India has not acquired
the citizenship of another country shall be upon the person who denies that
he has acquired such citizenship."
"Rule 2: The Central Government shall have regard to all the
circumstances of the case and shall not be bound to follow any particular
rules of evidence."
"Rule 3: The fact that a citizen of India has obtained a passport from the
Government of any other country shall be conclusive proof of his having
voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country."
3
28. In Izhar Ahmad Khan vs. Union of India , the Supreme Court upheld
the Constitutional validity of Section 9(2) of the Act and Rule 3 of Schedule
III of the 2009 Rules in the following terms:-
“12…There is no ambiguity about the effect of Section 9. It is clear that
the voluntary acquisition by an Indian citizen of the citizenship of another
country terminates his citizenship of India, provided the said voluntary
acquisition has taken place between the 26th January, 1950 and the
commencement of the Act, or takes place thereafter. It would thus be seen
3
1962 SCC OnLine SC 1.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
that whereas Article 9 of the Constitution dealt with the acquisition of
citizenship of a foreign State which had taken place prior to the
commencement of the Constitution, s. 9 of the Act deals with acquisition of
foreign citizenship subsequent to the commencement of the Constitution.
There is, therefore, no doubt that the Constitution does not favour plural
or dual citizenship and just as in regard to the period prior to the
Constitution, Article 9 prevents a person who had voluntarily acquired the
citizenship of foreign country from claiming the status of an Indian citizen,
so does s.9(1) make a similar provision in regard to the period subsequent
to the commencement' of the Constitution. Section 9 provides that the
acquisition of foreign citizenship can be the result either of naturalisation
or registration or any other method of voluntarily acquiring such
citizenship. Just as the citizenship of India can be acquired by
naturalisation or registration, or registration, so can the citizenship of a
foregin country be, similarly acquired by naturalisation or registration. If
it is shown that the person has acquired foreign citizenship either by
naturalisation or registration, there can be no doubt that he ceases to be a
citizen of India in consequence of such naturalisation or registration.
These two classes of foreign citizenship present no difficulty. It is only in
regard to the last category of cases where foreign citizenship is acquired
otherwise than by naturalisation or registration that difficulty may arise.
But the position in respect of the last category of cases is also not in doubt
and that is that if it is shown that by some other procedure foreign
citizenship has been voluntarily acquired. Indian citizenship, immediately
comes to an end. The proviso to sub-section (1) need not detain us because
we are not concerned with the cases falling under that proviso.”
“13.That takes us to sub cl. (2) of Section 9. This clause provides that if
any question arises as to the acquisition by an Indian citizen of foreign
citizenship, it shall be determined by such authority, in such manner, and
having regard to such rules of evidence as may be prescribed in this
behalf. In other words if any dispute arises as to whether foreign
citizenship has been acquired voluntarily by an Indian citizen, or if it has
been so acquired, when or how the power to decide this question has been
delegated to the authority as may be prescribed in that behalf. Likewise,
the manner in which the enquiry should be held and the rules subject to
which the enquiry should be held have also to be prescribed in that behalf.
The result of this sub-section is that rules are to be framed prescribing the
authority by which the said questions should be tried, the manner in which
they should be tried and the rules of evidence subject to which they should
be tried”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
“16…Then follows Rule 3 the validity of which is challenged before us.
This rule reads thus:
“The fact that a citizen of India has obtained on any date a passport from
the Government of any other country shall be conclusive proof of his
having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of the country before that date.
To the rest of the rules it is unnecessary to refer. The scope and effect of
Rule 3 are absolutely clear. If it is shown that a citizen of India has
obtained a passport from a foreign Government on any date, then under
rule 3 an inference has to be drawn that by obtaining the said passport he
has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of that country before the date of
the passport. In other words, the proof of the fact that a passport from a
foreign country has been obtained on a certain date, conclusively
determines the other fact that before that date, he has voluntarily acquired
the citizenship of that country. The question which arises for decision is
whether this rule is constitutionally valid and if it is, whether Section 9(2)
under which the power to hold the enquiry subject to the relevant rules,
has been delegated to the Central Government is itself constitutionally
valid.”
4
29. In Govt. of A.P. vs. Syed Mohd. Khan , the Supreme Court, shortly
after Izhar Ahmad Khan enunciated the following ruling:-
“6..Indeed it is clear that in the course of the judgment, this Court has
emphasised the fact that the question as to whether a person has lost his
citizenship of this country and has acquired the citizenship of a foreign
country has to be tried by the Central Government and it is only after the
Centrul Government has decided the point the State Government can deal
with the person as a foreigner. It may be that if a passport from a foreign
Government is obtained by a citizen, and the case falls under the
impugned Rule, the conclusion may follow that he has acquired the
citizenship of the foreign country ; but that conclusion can be drawn only
by the appropriate authority authorised under the Act to enquire into
question. Therefore, there is no doubt that in all cases where action is
proposed to be taken against persons residing in this country on the
ground that they have acquired the citizenship of a foreign State and have
lost in consequence the citizenship of this country, it is essential that that
question should be first considered by the Central Government. In dealing
with the question, the Central Government would undoubtedly be entitled
to give effect to the impugned Rule. 3 in Schedule III and deal with the
matter in accordance with the other relevant Rules framed under the Act.
4
AIR 1962 SC 1778.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
The decision of the Central Government about the status of the person is
the basis on which any further action can be taken against him…”
5
30. In Mohd. Ayub Khan vs. Commissioner of Police, Madras the
Supreme Court held that:-
“9.Section 9(1)of the Citizenship Act provides for termination of
citizenship of an Indian citizen if he has (subject to the proviso which is
not material) by naturalisation, registration or otherwise, voluntarily
acquired citizenship of another country. Subject to the exception in the
proviso therefore naturalisation, registration or acquisition of citizenship
of another country operates to terminate the citizenship of India.
Acquisition of citizenship of another country to determine Indian
citizenship must however be voluntary. By sub-s. (2) provision is made for
setting up an authority to determine the question where, when and how
citizenship of another country has been acquired, and by Rule 30 the
Central Government is designated as the authority which is invested with.
power to determine the question in such manner, and having regard to
such rules of evidence as may be prescribed. Provision for prescribing
rules of evidence, having regard to which the question of acquisition of
citizenship of another country has to be determined, clearly indicates that
the order is not to be made on the mere satisfaction of the authority
without enquiry, that the citizen concerned has obtained a passport of
another country The question as to whether when and how foreign
citizenship has been acquired has to be determined having regard to the
rules of evidence prescribed, and termination of Indian citizenship being
the consequence of voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship, the
authority has also to determine that such latter citizenship has been
voluntarily acquired. Determination of the question postulates an
approach as in a quasi-judicial enquiry : the citizen concerned must be
given due notice of the nature of the action which in the view of the
authority involves termination of Indian citizenship, and reasonable
opportunity must be afforded to the citizen to convince the authority that
what is alleged against him is not true. What the scope and extent of the
enquiry to be made by the authority on a plea raised by the citizen
concerned should be, depends upon the circumstances of each case.”
“10.Paragraph 1 of Sch. III which raises a rebuttable presumption, when
it appears to the Central Government that a citizen has voluntarily
acquired foreign citizenship, casts the burden of proof upon the citizen to
disprove such acquisition, and Paragraph 2 which authorises the Central
5
1965 SCC OnLine SC 89.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Government to make enquiries for the purpose of determining the question
raised, strongly support the view that the Central Government must arrive
at a decision that the Indian citizen has voluntarily acquired foreign
citizenship, before action can be taken against him on the footing that his
citizenship is terminated. Paragraph 3 raises a conclusive presumption
that a citizen of India who has obtained a passport from a foreign country
on any date, has before that date voluntarily acquired citizenship of that
other county. By the application of the rule in Paragraph 3 the authority
must regard obtaining of a foreign passport on a particular date as
conclusive proof that the Indian citizen has voluntarily acquired
citizenship of another country before that date. But obtaining of a passport
of a foreign country cannot in all cases merely mean receiving the
passport . If a plea is raised by the citizen that he had not voluntarily
obtained the passport, the citizen must be afforded an opportunity to
prove that fact. Cases may be visualised in which on account of force a
person may be compelled or on account of fraud or misrepresentation be
may be induced, without any intention of renunciation of his Indian
citizenship, to obtain a passport from a foreign country. It would be
difficult to say that such a passport is one which has been "obtained"
within the assumption must arise that he has acquired voluntarily
citizenship of that country.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
6
31. In K.L. Modi vs. Union of India , Division Bench of this Court
elaborated upon the issue of acquiring citizenship of a foreign State despite
holding a valid Indian citizenship, the text is extracted as under:-
“ 13. This Court is not inclined, and indeed is not competent, in these
proceedings on the existing pleadings to make any order direction the
respondents to permit the petitioner to enter and stay in the territories of
India. It is not for this Court to adjudicate on the question of the
petitioner's citizenship in writ proceeding on the material on this record.
The question of voluntary or involuntary acquisition of citizenship of some
other country is also not for this Court is not in a position, as a matter of
law , on the existing material to hold that the petitioner is an Indian
citizen. The question whether the petitioner has lost his citizenship of India
and acquired citizenship of some other country is to be decided any the
Central Government and not by this Court in the person proceedings. We
are, in the circumstances, inclined to direct the respondents to consider
and adjudicate upon the question of the petitioner's citizenship under
Section 9 of the Citizenship Act. ”
6
1969 SCC OnLine Del 76.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
32. The position therefore, is clear and settled. India does not recognise
dual citizenship. Article 9 of the Constitution and Section 9(1) of the Act
prohibit the concurrent holding of Indian citizenship and the citizenship of
any foreign state.
33. The NOCC Cancellation Certificate dated 11.07.2025, the only
document relied upon by the Respondents, is, on its plain and unambiguous
terms, a certificate of surrender and cancellation. It is not, and cannot in law
be treated as, affirmative proof of the prior voluntary acquisition of
citizenship.
34. The objections raised by the Respondents stands extinguished by the
direct diplomatic confirmation vide mail dated 27.03.2026. When the
diplomatic mission of a foreign State in India confirms, through its official
channel, the authenticity and operative effect of a document, that
confirmation does not warrant any further administrative questioning.
35. Additionally, RPO, an authority vested with the power to scrutinise
the validity of an Indian Passport and, if warranted, has the power to cancel
it on grounds including the possession of dual nationality under Section
10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, upon investigation, returned a clear finding
vide letter dated 29.10.2025.
36. The finding so arrived upon statutory investigation carries evidentiary
value and cannot and should not be ignored, minimised, or unilaterally
overridden by the FRRO.
37. The Court, thus, finds that on the basis of the inference, the petitioner
should not be denied the right to travel abroad, which has been construed as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as per Maneka
7
Gandhi vs. Union of India .
38. In view of the aforesaid, the FRRO is directed to reconsider its
decision, and to pass an appropriate order enabling the petitioner to travel
abroad without any impediment.
39. If there is any other positive evidence that would clearly establish
dual citizenship, let the specific reason regarding the said exercise be
assigned within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the
order passed today.
40. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed
of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MAY 8, 2026
Sh/nk
7
AIR 1978 SC 597.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV