(TibetanReview.net, Oct22’26) – The election rules of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) provides for one set of constituencies and rules for Tibetans living India, Nepal and Bhutan and another set for those living in other countries, based on their residential status, for standing as candidates, as well as voting, in the Tibetan Parliament in Exile (TPiE) elections. And it debars eligible Tibetans from one set of constituencies from voting or standing for election in the other set for obvious reasons. But what if a Tibetan is a Canadian citizen, having previously migrated there, but has been living in India for some three years under the latter’s Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) permit system?
Called to decide this in the case of Tenzin Khedup Vs the Central Election Commission of the CTA, the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission (TSJC) has ruled that the petitioner was ineligible to run for election in India for the simple reason that he had not taken steps to transfer his residential status for this purpose prescribed by the relevant CTA election rules. It thereby upheld the decision of the election commission to debar him from standing as a Dotoe candidate in the 2026 TPiE election.
The decision is unexceptionable as the petitioner continued to be a voter and eligible to stand for election from his adoptive country. He, therefore, obviously could not clam the same right from India as well for the simple reason that he has been living in Lugsam Tibetan Settlement in Bylakuppe, Karnataka, for some three years.
The arguments turned on the meaning of the term “residential status” but the case was decided on the basis of this technical provision.
The TSJC has pointed out that the rules require a person to have resided in the new locality for at least five years, relinquished all entitlements at his previous residence, and complied with the prescribed transfer procedure, none of which the petitioner fulfilled.
Tibetans living in India, Nepal and Bhutan vote for candidates in the TPiE elections to represent their historical provinces and religious schools whereas those living in exile other countries vote for candidates to represent their geographical constituencies without any provincial or religious criteria.
The OCI status effectively functions as a lifelong permanent residence permit for foreign nationals of Indian origin. The Constitution of India strictly forbids dual nationality. Hence, the Government of India issues the OCI card not as a second passport, but as a lifelong, multiple-entry, multi-purpose visa that grants holders permanent residency privileges without a maximum stay limit.
In another setback for Tenzin Khedup, who argued that he had been paying his Tibetan Greenbook dues in India in amounts prescribed for its residents, even as his receipt booklet bore its Canadian number and he admittedly remained a Canadian citizen, the TSJC has said he should have paid his dues, as per rule, in amounts prescribed for those residing in Canada, which is much higher.
The relevant rule says Tibetans residing in a country, or staying in it for more than one year, must contribute their Greenbook dues at the applicable amount for that country. It bars Tibetans from using relatives in another country to pay their contributions at a lower amount.
The TSJC has called for amendments to the relevant provisions to make the residential and Greenbook contribution rules watertight in light of its observations in this case.