Diplomatic confirmation of foreign passport cancellation precludes adverse immigration action based on alleged dual nationality.

The Petitioner, an Indian cricketer, was offloaded at IGI Airport on 29.10.2025 based on an active Look-Out Circular (LOC) alleging dual nationality

The Petitioner had traveled to Cambodia in 2023 for the Southeast Asian Games, where administrative formalities were handled by the Cricket Federation of Cambodia

It was alleged he possessed a Cambodian Passport (N1929299) alongside his Indian Passport

The Petitioner maintained he never voluntarily applied for foreign citizenship or took an oath of allegiance

On 11.07.2025, the National Olympic Committee of Cambodia (NOCC) issued a certificate confirming the surrender and cancellation of the said Cambodian passport

Following a Show Cause Notice, the Regional Passport Office (RPO) verified the Petitioner's records and affirmed the validity of his Indian passport on 29.10.2025

Despite this, the Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO) maintained the LOC, questioning the authenticity of the Cambodian Embassy’s email communications

1. Whether the possession of a surrendered and cancelled foreign travel document constitutes "voluntary acquisition" of foreign citizenship sufficient to terminate Indian citizenship under the Passport Act and Citizenship Act.

2. Whether the FRRO can maintain an LOC based on allegations of dual nationality after the competent Passport Authority (RPO) has affirmed the validity of the Indian passport.

Article 9 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that Indian citizenship is lost if a person "voluntarily acquires" the citizenship of a foreign State

Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and Rule 40 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009, which designate the Central Government as the sole authority to determine questions of foreign citizenship acquisition

Schedule III of the 2009 Rules, specifically Rule 3, which creates a conclusive presumption of voluntary acquisition if a citizen obtains a foreign passport

Precedents from Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India, Govt. of A.P. v. Syed Mohd. Khan, and Mohd. Ayub Khan v. Commissioner of Police were applied to establish that such a presumption is rebuttable if the passport was obtained through fraud or lack of intent, and that a quasi-judicial inquiry is mandatory before termination of citizenship

The right to travel abroad was upheld as a facet of Article 21 per Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

The Court reasoned that India’s constitutional framework strictly adheres to single citizenship

The mere existence of a cancellation certificate from the NOCC did not constitute affirmative proof of the voluntary acquisition of citizenship; rather, it proved only the surrender of a document

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s claim—that he never underwent naturalization or took an oath—was uncontroverted

Crucially, the RPO (the competent statutory authority) had already conducted a verification and cleared the Petitioner's Indian passport

The Court found the FRRO’s objections regarding the authenticity of diplomatic emails unsustainable, as the Royal Embassy of Cambodia had officially confirmed the authenticity of the cancellation certificate and the communication channels used

The Court held that the FRRO could not unilaterally override the RPO’s findings or restrict the Petitioner's movement based on unresolved inferences

The Court directed the FRRO to reconsider its decision and pass appropriate orders to enable the Petitioner to travel without impediment

The Respondents were granted 15 days to assign specific reasons or produce positive evidence if they intended to maintain that the Petitioner had indeed acquired dual citizenship; otherwise, the restrictions must be lifted. The petition was disposed of with these directions.