(TibetanReview.net, Feb05’26) – The Delhi High Court has on Feb 3 upheld its series of previous decisions since 2010, saying Tibetans born in India on or after Jan 26, 1950, and before Jul 1, 1987, are citizens by birth under the country’s citizenship law. Crucially, it has rejected the contention of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) that once registered as a “Tibetan Refugee” and issued with an identity Certificate (IC), such a Tibetan should be considered to have voluntarily renounced their Indian citizenship.
IC is the travel document issued by the government of India to Tibetans registered as foreigners. But it is not universally recognized by immigration authorities at international airports, with even those with visas issued on them being sometimes turned back.
The High Court has also rejected the MEA’s submission that it was “under process” to challenge a bunch of orders pertaining to “Tibetan Refugees”, where the Delhi HC had ruled in favour of them, declaring them as Indian nationals, dating back to 2010.
Relying on the past judicial precedents where Tibetan refugees born in India within the cut-off dates as prescribed under the Act had been recognised as Indian citizens, Justice Sachin Datta has ruled that MEA’s argument that Tibetan refugees with IC certificates amounted to voluntary renunciation of Indian citizenship as “misconceived”.
The nub of the legal issue turned on the interpretation of Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which confers automatic Indian citizenship on every person born in India in the specified period. Unlike citizenship by registration or naturalisation, this provision does not require any affirmative act or approval by the government; citizenship accrues by operation of law, it was explained.
Also, Justice Datta has clarified that describing oneself as a “Tibetan National” for the limited purpose of obtaining an IC did not amount to a legal renunciation of Indian citizenship, noting that “Nationality” is not a legally recognised category under the Citizenship Act.
Examining the nature of the Swiss document held by the petitioner, Yangchen Drakmargyapon, the court has observed that it was seen to be a “passport for aliens” issued to non-citizens with residence permits. It did not confer Swiss citizenship and, therefore, did not attract Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, which terminates Indian citizenship only upon the voluntary acquisition of another country’s citizenship.
The petitioner was born in Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, on May 15, 1966, and travelled to Switzerland in 1997. The court held that her place and date of birth alone sufficiently established her citizenship and that no subsequent conduct could negate a right that had vested at birth, except under the stringent conditions of statutory renunciation or voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship.