Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

1. Citizenship

Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, amended in 2019, provides that every person born in India is a citizen by birth if they meet the following criteria:

1. Except as provided in sub-section (2), every person born in India―
   
   1. on or after the 26th day of January, 1950, but before the 1^st day of July, 1987;
   2. on or after the 1^st day of July, 1987, but before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 (6 of 2004) and either of whose parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth;
   3. on or after the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 (6 of 2004), where―
      
      1. both of his parents are citizens of India; or
      2. one of whose parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of his birth, shall be a citizen of India by birth.
2. A person shall not be a citizen of India by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth―
   
   1. either his father or mother possesses such immunity from suits and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to the President of India and he or she, as the case may be, is not a citizen of India; or
   2. his father or mother is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy. (India 1955, Sec. 3)

A circular available on the website of India's Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which addresses the most frequently asked questions in relation to acquiring Indian citizenship, states the following:

[Question:] I was born in India in 1990 and both my parents were foreigners at the time of birth. Am I a citizen of India by birth?

Reply: No. For details you may refer to the provisions of Section 3 [of] the Citizenship Act, 1955. (India n.d.a, 3)

Article 9 of the Constitution of India provides the following regarding dual citizenship:

Persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign State not to be citizens.— 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. (India 1949, Art. 9, bold in original)

1.1 Requirements and Procedures

Information on the procedure to apply for Indian citizenship by birth under section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

1.2 Court Rulings

In Namgyal Dolkar v. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, the High Court of Delhi heard the case of a child of Tibetan refugees who was born in India in 1986 and whose passport application was refused by the Regional Passport Officer and Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) because she "could not be treated as an Indian national under Section 3(1)(a)" of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (India 22 Dec. 2010, para. 1, 2). The decision on that case states the following:

24. A plain reading of the above provision shows that a cut-off date was introduced by the Parliament for recognition of citizenship by birth. Except as provided by Section 3(2), every person born in India on or after the 26th January 1950 but before the 1^st day of July 1987 shall be a citizen of India by birth. Admittedly, in the present case, none of the prohibitions contained in Section 3(2) [of the Citizenship Act, 1955] are attracted. The case of the Petitioner is within the ambit of Section 3(1)(a) since she was born in India … [in 1986], i.e., after 26th January 1950 but before 1^st July 1987. The [Statement of Objects and Reasons] accompanying the amendment Bill of 1986, by which the above provision was introduced and discussed in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, makes it clear that the change brought about by the amendment was to be prospective. The rationale behind introduction of a cut-off' date was that the position prior to 1^st July 1987 was not intended to be disturbed.

25. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in her submission that there is no need for a person who is an Indian citizen by birth, to have to apply for citizenship. Unlike certain other provisions, like Section 5 and Section 6 [of the Citizenship Act, 1955] which require an application to be made for grant or recognition of citizenship, no such application process is envisaged in Section 3(1) [of the Citizenship Act, 1955]. (India 22 Dec. 2010, para. 24–25)

The same decision further states that

the concept of nationality' does not have legislative recognition in the [Citizenship Act, 1955]. The Petitioner's describing herself to be a Tibetan national' is really of no legal consequence as far as the [Citizenship Act, 1955] is concerned, or for that matter from the point of view of the policy of the MEA. (India 22 Dec. 2010, para. 28)

In the August 2013 case of Tenzin Choephag Ling Rinpoche v. Union of India, the High Court of Karnataka similarly considered whether a person born in India between 26 January 1950 and 1 July 1987 to Tibetan refugee parents would be considered an Indian citizen under section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (India 7 Aug. 2013, para. 5). In reference to Namgyal Dolkar v. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, the decision stated the following:

11. Having noticed the decision rendered by the High Court of New Delhi, I am of the opinion that if a similar circumstance arises, certainly the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the conclusion reached therein inasmuch as I see no reason whatsoever to take a different view from what has been stated by the Delhi High Court. (India 7 Aug. 2013, para. 11)

Similarly, in Phuntsok Wangyal v. Union of India, another citizenship case brought by three individuals of Tibetan origin born in India, the High Court of Delhi stated the following in 2016 regarding one of the petitioners:

14. The petitioner … was born … [in 1992] and his father was born in India … [in 1966]. Since the father of the petitioner … was born in India and satisfies the requirement of section 3(1) (a) of the Act, he would be an Indian Citizen and thus the petitioner satisfies the requirement of section 3(1) (b) of the Act (India 22 Sept. 2016, para. 14)

1.3 Enforcement of Rulings

The Tibet Justice Center (TJC), an "independent," US-based "committee of lawyers and other experts" that advocates for Tibetans' human rights and self-determination (TJC n.d.), indicates that

[t]he provisions of [sections] 3 and 6 of the Citizenship Act of 1955 appear to offer at least a subset of the population of Tibetans in India access to citizenship. Taking [section] 3 at face value, a substantial number of Tibetans in India are de jure citizens of India. In reality, it has proved virtually impossible for these Tibetans to acquire passports to prove their status as citizens, and thus they remain foreigners in India. For the many Tibetans who don't qualify as citizens under [section] 3, [section] 6 would seem to provide a potential path to lawful naturalization, yet there too, this avenue has been effectively foreclosed to Tibetans. (TJC June 2016, 58, 188)

The TJC further reports that despite high courts having ruled "a number of" times that Tibetans born in India between 1950 and 1987 are Indian citizens, "[t]he inability of Tibetans … to secure citizenship has not changed" (TJC June 2016, 58). In an interview with the Research Directorate, a cultural anthropologist and historian at the University of Colorado Boulder, whose research focuses on contemporary Tibet, including refugee and citizenship issues, similarly indicated that the High Court of Delhi decision conferring citizenship to a Tibetan woman has not "generally" been taken as "establishing precedent" for the rest of the country (Cultural anthropologist 3 Dec. 2021). Similarly, in an article published in 2020 in the Revue d'Études tibétaines, Abhinav Seetharaman, a Business Fellow at the Milken Institute in Singapore who has conducted research on government affairs, public policy and international relations focusing on Asia (China-US Focus n.d.), refers to a "few of the most prominent high court decisions" and states the Government of India "has continued to refuse to apply these holdings to anyone other than the named plaintiff" (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 100). An article published in the Tibetan Review, an English-language monthly magazine based in Delhi focusing on Tibetan issues (Tibetan Review n.d.), reports that despite previous court rulings by the high courts of Delhi and Karnataka in 2011 and 2013 asserting birthright citizenship for Tibetans born in India between 26 January 1950 and 1 July 1987, the Government of India stated again in October 2014 that all Tibetans, regardless of when they were born, are required to register as "'refugees' who are staying temporarily on humanitarian considerations" (Tibetan Review 16 May 2016). The same source adds in contrast that, earlier in 2014, the Election Commission of India (ECI) had issued a directive indicating that Tibetans born in the designated period and their children were eligible to vote (Tibetan Review 16 May 2016).

Seetharaman notes that, as a result of the government refusing to apply the court rulings, "many" Tibetans have "remained foreigners in India" (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 100). Citing an interview with Namgyal Dolkar, the plaintiff in Namgyal Dolkar v. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, the TJC reports that she is "regularly" contacted by Tibetans across India who were born during the eligible period but who have been "ignored or denied" a passport despite having the "proper documents," including a birth certificate indicating "age and place of birth" (TJC June 2016, 61). The same source adds that despite the high court decisions granting citizenship to Tibetan petitioners,

Tibetans born between the designated years are still routinely denied passports and it appears that the only way to enforce the provisions of the Citizenship Act is to hire a lawyer (for roughly 100,000 rupees [C$1,687]) to contest the denial in High Court. This is not a realistic option for the vast majority of Tibetans. (TJC June 2016, 61)

2. Passport

According to sources, a directive signed by the Chief Passport Officer of India was circulated on 17 September 2018 by the MEA to regional offices [or all Passport Issuing Authorities (PIA) in India and abroad (India 17 Sept. 2018)] in response to an order from the High Court of Delhi concerning the issuance of passports to Tibetan refugees born in India between 26 January 1950 and 1 July 1987, and to the children of Tibetan refugees born after 1 July 1987 (India 17 Sept. 2018; Tibetan Review 24 Sept. 2018). The 2018 directive states that the following categories of Tibetans are citizens by birth under Section 3(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and therefore eligible for an Indian passport:

• Individuals born in India on or after 1 January 1987, but before the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, and if at least one of their parents was born in India between 26 January 1950 and 1 July 1987;
• Individuals born in India on or after the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 if one or both of their parents was born in India between 26 January 1950 and 1 July 1987 and neither parent was an "illegal immigrant" at the time of the individual's birth (India 17 Sept. 2018).

The same directive states that all PIA in India and abroad have been

requested to process the [passport] applications received … from [Tibetan refugee] applicants born in India between [26 January 1950] and [1 July 1987] and their children who have been declared Indian citizens under the Citizenship Act, 1955. (India 17 Sept. 2018)

The Passports Act, 1967, which regulates departure from India for its citizens, provides for the following grounds for refusal of passport issuance:

6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc.

1. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and no other ground, namely: -
   
   1. that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India:
   2. that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
   3. that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country,
   4. that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest.
2. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely: -
   
   1. that the applicant is not a citizen of India.,
   2. that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.,
   3. that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
   4. that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;
   5. that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;
   6. that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;
   7. that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;
   8. that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;
   9. that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. (India 1967, Art. 6)

2.1 Requirements and Procedures

The information in the following paragraph was sourced from the MEA Consular, Passport and Visa Division's official website:

The process for completing and submitting the passport application form includes correctly filling in the personal information fields and providing a recent colour passport size photograph and a signature or, for illiterate applicants, a thumb impression. India-born citizens must include the following documents with their application:

• Proof of present address, such as a utility bill or rental agreement; and
• Proof of date of birth, such as a birth certificate or a voter ID card or driver's licence with a complete date of birth.

Applicants may also include proof of their Non Emigration Check Required (non-ECR) status [1] or supporting documentation for "out of turn" [2] passport issuance (India n.d.b, 1,2, 7, 11, 12, 13).

The 2018 MEA directive indicates that Tibetans who apply for Indian passports must abide by the following criteria:

1. The individual must turn over their Registration Certificate (RC) [3] and/or Identity Certificate (IC) [4] to the passport authority. If the RC has already been surrendered, Tibetans must submit a Surrender Certificate issued by the Foreign Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) or Foreign Registration Officer (FRO).
2. Once in possession of an Indian passport, Tibetans "should" no longer live in Tibetan refugee settlements or receive any benefits from the Tibetan government-in-exile. The individual must submit a declaration in which they "willingly give up [their] status" as a Tibetan refugee and its associated benefits (India 17 Sept. 2018).

The same directive notes that passport applications are subject to a "[p]re-police verification," adding that if the result of the police verification is "'[a]dverse'" due to the applicant being a child of a Tibetan refugee, the PIA should treat the verification report as "[c]lear" and issue the Indian passport (India 17 Sept. 2018).

For information on the requirements and procedures to obtain a passport from abroad, particularly for Tibetans born in India between 1950 and 1987, and the requirements for a Tibetan to return to India from abroad, see Response to Information Request IND106312 of June 2019.

2.2 Court Rulings

In the 2018 decision Sonam Lhanzom v. Union of India, the High Court of Delhi considered whether a person of Tibetan origin born in India in 1998 to a parent who was born in India prior to 1987 would be eligible for an Indian passport under section 3(1)(a) or (b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and provided the following reasons:

9.1. A bare reading of Section 3 (1) (a) would show that any person who does not fall within the exception of sub-section (2) and is born in India on or after [26 January 1950] but before [1 July 1987] would be a citizen of India. Likewise Section 3 (1) (b) provides that any person who, does not fall within the exception of sub-section (2) and is born on or after [1 July 1987] but before the commencement of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 and either of whose parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth, would be a citizen of India.

9.2. It is not in dispute that neither the petitioner nor her mother falls within the purview of sub-Section (2) of Section 3.

9.3 Therefore, insofar as the petitioner is concerned (whose date of birth, as indicated above, is … [in 1998]) she can claim citizenship of India by birth, only if either of her parents were also citizens of India at the time of her birth.

9.4 As indicated above, the petitioner's mother was born in India … [in 1979] therefore, insofar as the mother is concerned, her claim for citizenship falls within the ambit of Section 3 (1) (a) of the 1955 Act.

9.5 Likewise, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, her claim gets covered under Section 3 (1) (b) of the 1955 Act because the twin conditions provided therein are fulfilled by her as her birth took place within the defined period which is after [1 July 1987] but before the commencement of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 coupled with the fact that her mother acquired citizenship by birth as her case fell within the purview of Section 3 (1) (a) of the 1955 Act.

10. In my view, a bare reading of the aforementioned provisions prima facie establishes that the petitioner's claim to citizenship is sustainable, and if, there is no other impediment, her application for issuance of passport ought to be considered. (India 9 Feb. 2018, para. 9–10, italics in original)

An August 2017 High Court of Delhi ruling, Karma Gyaltsen Neyratsang v. Union of India, involved the revocation of the passport of an individual of Tibetan descent born in India in 1965 on the following grounds:

10. … First, it was alleged that the petitioner was a Tibetan national and had obtained the passports by concealing his Tibetan nationality - this was the only ground stated in the first Show Cause Notice issued on 29.06.2012. Second, it was held that the petitioner had wilfully declared the nationality of his parents as Indian and concealed his Tibetan identity. Third, it was alleged that the passport was obtained by suppression/ wrong information provided by the holder - this allegation was made in the notice dated 12.09.2012 which was bereft of any particulars. Fourth, it was stated in the counter affidavit filed before this Court that there was also a report from the [Intelligence Bureau (IB)] that the petitioner was involved in "anti-national activities". (India 29 Aug. 2017, para. 10)

In response to the grounds that the petitioner was a Tibetan national and had concealed their Tibetan identity, the ruling found the following:

14. It is apparent from a plain reading of Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 that ever [sic] person born in India on or after 26.01.1950 but before 01.07.1987 would acquire citizenship by birth. The only exception set out is in under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. In cases where either of the parents of the person possess immunity from suits and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to the President of India and the said parent is not a citizen of India, the person born in India would not acquire Indian citizenship. The second exception being in case where either of the parents of the person is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy. Plainly none of these two exceptions are applicable in this case.

15. The petitioner neither held any Tibetan refugee certificate nor a Tibetan identity card, thus, there is no material which would raise any doubts as to the Indian citizenship of the petitioner. Plainly, the petitioner had acquired Indian citizenship by birth.

16. The circulars issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs cannot be read to dilute the express provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The question of invoking the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, arise, only if any question arises as to whether, when or how any citizen of India has acquired a citizenship of another country. In the present case, there is not even a remote suggestion that the petitioner has acquired citizenship of another country. Thus, the question of the petitioner making any application under Section 9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 to decide the question of his citizenship would not arise. (India 29 Aug. 2017, para. 14–16)

Sources indicate that in June 2017 the Indian government issued the following four requirements for Tibetan applicants of Indian citizenship: 1) vacate the Tibetan refugee settlements [when submitting the application (Hindustan Times 26 June 2017)], 2) surrender their RC and IC documents, 3) relinquish their benefits, and 4) provide a written statement confirming the renunciation of benefits (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 101-102; Hindustan Times 26 June 2017; Scholar 8 Dec. 2021). In response, a 2017 High Court of Delhi decision, Tamding Dorjee v. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, ruled that the government cannot refuse to issue passports to Tibetans residing in a designated refugee settlement. The decision reads as follows:

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has been unable to point out any provision in law, which entitles the passport authorities to deny passport to an Indian citizen on the basis of where he resides in this country. It must be clarified that this Court is not called upon to examine whether the petitioner is entitled to reside in designated Tibetan refugee settlements or not; the limited scope of examination in this petition is whether the respondent can deny passport facilities to an Indian citizen on the basis that he resides in such settlements.

…

9. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 expressly provides that the passport can be denied only on the ground listed therein and "no other ground". In the present case, none of the grounds as set out in Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 are applicable. Thus, clearly, the passport facilities cannot be denied to the petitioner based on the notification dated 30.05.2017.

10. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to process the petitioner's application for a passport as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner shall also surrender his RC/IC Card within the said period to the concerned authority. (India 7 Nov. 2017, para. 7, 9-10)

2.3 Enforcement of Rulings

In a 2017 article published by Hindustan Times, an English-language daily newspaper based in India, Lobsang Wangyal, [one of the petitioners in Phuntsok Wangyal v. Union of India (India 22 Sept. 2016)], stated that the June 2017 requirements [listed in section 2.2 of this Response] for Tibetans seeking an Indian passport "'have put Tibetans in a dilemma'," as forcing them to leave their settlements to hold a passport "'is like asking a Tibetan to become homeless for a second time'" (Hindustan Times 26 June 2017). In the same article, Wangyal further reported the case of two Tibetans who applied for passports in Bengaluru [Bangalore] and were informed that they had to "provide a different address other than their settlement" on their applications; Wangyal added that because passport offices do not have "clarity about the order," Tibetans are denied passports (Hindustan Times 26 June 2017). Similarly, Seetharaman writes that the addition of the June 2017 requirements, particularly the prohibition on returning to their refugee settlements, "made it extremely difficult" for Tibetans pursuing citizenship and "discouraged" many from applying (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 102).

According to Seetharaman, since the ruling on Tamding Dorjee v. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, regional passport offices have "for the most part" not enforced the criteria on the designated settlement residence (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 102). In an interview with the Research Directorate, a scholar at a New Delhi university who researches Tibet as well as topics such as peace, security, democracy and human rights, stated, without providing further details, that different regional passport offices applied the four criteria differently, with some "strict[ly]" following the directives and others applying them more "lenient[ly]" (Scholar 8 Dec. 2021). According to France's Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides, OFPRA), [translation] "very few" Tibetans had a passport and were registered to vote as of October 2017, due to both the "reticence" of issuing offices to process requests submitted by persons of Tibetan origin and the required forfeiture of access to Tibetan settlements and aid from the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) (France 7 Jan. 2020, 7). In an article published by the Times of India, an Indian English-language newspaper owned by the Times Group media conglomerate (The Times Group n.d.), "[s]ome 1,000" out of "around" 22,000 Tibetans living in the state of Himachal Pradesh registered with the ECI to vote in the 2017 state assembly elections (The Times of India 3 Nov. 2017). Media sources also report that Tibetans living in the Kangra district of Himachal Pradesh were required to surrender their RC upon registration as Indian voters (The Tibet Express 12 Feb. 2018; Tibetan Review 12 Feb. 2018; The Times of India 11 Feb. 2018).

3. Situation of Tibetans Exercising Citizenship Rights and Seeking Passport

The scholar stated that India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, and the government views India's Tibetan population as "foreigners" (Scholar 8 Dec. 2021). Sources indicate that Tibetan refugees arriving in India decreased "stead[ily]" (Australia 10 Dec. 2020, para. 2.19) or "significantly" (Reuters 21 June 2017); the Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) indicates that 80 Tibetans arrived in India in 2017 compared to 3,000 annually from 1996 to 2008 (Australia 10 Dec. 2020, para. 2.19), while Reuters reports that in 2015 87 Tibetans registered with the Tibetan government in exile in Dharamsala compared to 2,500 annually before 2008 (Reuters 21 June 2017). In an article published by the Indian Express, an English-language daily newspaper based in India, the Indian government's Advisor on Tibetan Affairs stated that the number of Tibetan refugees in India has decreased from 1.5 million in 2011 to 85,000 in 2018, a drop that "officials" stated "could" have been prompted by "various factors" such as the lack of a national refugee policy (The Indian Express 11 Sept. 2018). According to the latest census conducted by the Central Tibetan Relief Committee (CTRC) in 2019 and cited in the India MHA 2019-2020 Annual Report, the Tibetan refugee population in India is 73,404, with the main concentrations found in Karnataka (21,922), Himachal Pradesh (16,146), Arunachal Pradesh (4,708), Uttarakhand (4,654), West Bengal (3,006), and Jammu and Kashmir (7,041) (India 13 Feb. 2021, 253). Australia DFAT, however, indicates that an "estimated" 95,000 (Australia 10 Dec. 2020, para. 2.19) Tibetans live in India (Australia 10 Dec. 2020, para. 2.19).

In an article published by the Washington Post, an "Indian government official" stated that "there is no count of how many Tibetans have made applications for passports," while a CTA spokesperson indicated that "a small number had applied" (The Washington Post 9 Oct. 2017). Seetharaman indicates that there are "300-plus" Tibetans who hold passports, of which a "select few" undertook "high-profile" legal cases to obtain them (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 100). The cultural anthropologist noted that "many" members of the Tibetan "elite" in India hold citizenship in India or from western countries (Cultural anthropologist 3 Dec. 2021).

3.1 Treatment by the Indian Authorities

Sources report that Tibetans in India have "[g]enerally" (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 99) or "sometimes" (US 30 Mar. 2021, 37) faced difficulties exercising their citizenship rights despite meeting the legal requirements (US 30 Mar. 2021, 37; Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 99). According to various sources, Tibetans seeking passports are impacted by administrative "delays" (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 105) or "reluctance" to process applications (Doctoral Researcher 8 Dec. 2021), though this is an issue that affects "many" passport applicants in India, not just Tibetans (Doctoral Researcher 8 Dec. 2021; Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 105). In an interview with the Research Directorate, a doctoral researcher at the University of Sussex in Brighton, UK, whose research focuses on displacement, resettlement, and migration, including among Tibetan in India, noted that these issues "especially" affect those living in geographically remote and poor areas of India and in "smaller settlements" in the southern region (Doctoral Researcher 8 Dec. 2021).

Sources report that another hurdle faced by Tibetans is a lack of knowledge around the application process (Scholar 8 Dec. 2021; Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 99). Seetharaman, who interviewed 25 people in India in 2018, including "everyday" Tibetans and Tibetan politicians as well as Indian journalists covering Tibet and an Indian constitutional lawyer, states that according to interviewees this lack of knowledge "stems from a lack of direction from the Indian government" (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 98, 100).

A "high-ranking CTA official" interviewed by Seetharaman noted that Indian authorities' perception of Tibetans as "naturalized" rather than "natural" citizens "would explain" the Tibetans' perceived need to hire a lawyer in applying for citizenship (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 105). Sources report that lawyers providing these services charge "very high prices" (Scholar 8 Dec. 2021) or "significant" fees that "most" Tibetans cannot afford (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 103, 104). The same sources add that "some" of these lawyers "exploi[t]" applicants (Scholar 8 Dec. 2021) or a "non-trivial number" of these lawyers "engage in fraudulent practices," such as "overcharging" and "misleading" applicants (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 104).

According to the Doctoral Researcher, for Tibetans in India who were born in a remote area or into a poor family, it can be a "hardship" to gather all identity documents needed for submission, which include expired documents (Doctoral Researcher 8 Dec. 2021). Similarly, the cultural anthropologist stated that the "majority" of Tibetans in India are "under-documented citizens" to whom passports are "not available" (Cultural anthropologist 3 Dec. 2021). The TJC reports that for Tibetans who qualify for birthright citizenship in India, the requirement to "establish their date of birth" with a birth certificate "could" constitute an "obstacle," as "not all Tibetans born in India have valid Indian birth certificates" (TJC June 2016).

3.2 Treatment by Society

According to Seetharaman, based on the 2018 interviews, another set of obstacles which Tibetans in India face in exercising their citizenship rights include "criticism from many in the Tibetan community of India" (Seetharaman Apr. 2020, 98, 100). The Doctoral Researcher similarly reported that Tibetans may face "social pressures" related to their position or status within the exile community that "complicate" their quest for citizenship, if for example they are a monk or a CTA government official; individuals "common[ly]" seek citizenship and passports "secretly" (Doctoral Researcher 8 Dec. 2021). The same source added that social pressure may also be exerted by the applicant's family, if becoming an Indian citizen is seen as contrary to "devotion practices or Tibetan nationality" (Doctoral Researcher 8 Dec. 2021). The scholar indicated that obtaining Indian citizenship is perceived by "some" Tibetans as "undermin[ing]" the movement for a free Tibet, placing Tibetans with Indian citizenship in a "no man's land" where they are "ostracized" by the rest of the Tibetan community (Scholar 8 Dec. 2021).

3.3 Treatment by CTA

The TJC states, based on interviews with CTA officials, that the CTA's "official position" is not to "withhold its approval" of Tibetans pursuing citizenship in India, noting that the Tibetan Charter "explicitly" permits dual citizenship (TJC June 2016, 63). However, the same source cites other interviewees, including Tibetan officials and a civil society representative, as indicating that many, including "within the CTA," believe that Tibetans "should remain refugees" so as not to "relinquish their national identity and loyalties"; "[t]his lack of support by the CTA for Indian citizenship makes some Tibetans hesitant" to pursue it (TJC June 2016, 63). Similarly, the cultural anthropologist stated that the CTA "formally claims" to have no issue with Tibetans pursuing Indian citizenship, but "informally" discourages it (Cultural anthropologist 3 Dec. 2021). The scholar reports that the CTA would prefer fewer people apply for citizenship (Scholar 8 Dec. 2021). In an interview with the Hindu, an English-language daily newspaper in India, a "senior" CTA official stated that Tibetans obtaining Indian passports raises "genuine concerns" about the fate of the "Tibetan movement" (The Hindu 4 Feb. 2018). Conversely, in correspondence with the Research Directorate, a representative of the Department of Information and International Relations of the CTA stated that Tibetans living in India who acquire an Indian passport will not "face any obstacles" in remaining a part of the Tibetan community, as long as they keep their Tibetan Green Book [5] (CTA 17 Dec. 2021). The same source further indicated that there is "no [social] pressure" on Tibetans to remain stateless (CTA 17 Dec. 2021).

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible -information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim for refugee protection. Please find below the list of sources consulted in researching this Information Request.

Notes

[1] According to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Consular, Passport and Visa Division, individuals in certain "vulnerable sections of society," including children and illiterate workers, are required to undergo an immigration check before travelling abroad for work to protection them from exploitation (India n.d.b, 4). The same source adds that "[m]ost citizens" fall into the Non Emigration Check Required (Non-ECR) category (India n.d.b, 4).

[2] Sources indicate that the police check is conducted after rather than before the issuance of the "out of turn" passport (NewsBytes 5 Apr. 2018; India 2018, Art. 2(e)).

[3] Sources indicate that the Registration Certificate (RC) is equivalent to a residence permit (France 7 Jan. 2020, 4) or indicates that a person has "registered as a foreigner in India" (TJC June 2016, 40). The TJC states that in practice, it represents "informal status" allowing Tibetans "to reside in a particular locality of India," related to a Tibetan settlement (TJC June 2016, 40).

[4] France's Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides, OFPRA) reports that the Identity Certificate (IC) is a travel document issued by the Indian government to Tibetans (France 7 Jan. 2020, 4). According to the TJC, while the IC is intended to allow Tibetans to travel internationally, "[n]ot all countries accept the IC as valid travel documentation," and there are reports of Tibetans "being harassed and humiliated by custom officials and airport personnel who are unfamiliar with the document" even in countries such as the US and Canada that do accept it (TJC June 2016, 49-50).

[5] According to the website of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), the Tibetan Green Book is issued to any Tibetan who makes "Chatrel," a "monthly voluntary contribution" to the government-in-exile (CTA n.d.). The Green Book is "in effect" a passport for exiled Tibetans to use in "claim[ing] their rights from the CTA" and "for school admission, school or university scholarship, and employment within the exiled community" (CTA n.d.).

References

Australia. 10 December 2020. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). DFAT Country Information Report: India. [Accessed 15 Nov. 2021]

Central Tibetan Administration (CTA). 17 December 2021. Department of Information and International Relations. Correspondence from a representative to the Research Directorate.

Central Tibetan Administration (CTA). N.d. "Chatrel Background." [Accessed 29 Dec. 2021]

China-US Focus. N.d. "Commentaries by Abhinav Seetharaman." [Accessed 6 Oct. 2021]

Cultural anthropologist, University of Colorado Boulder. 3 December 2021. Interview with the Research Directorate.

Doctoral Researcher, University of Sussex. 8 December 2021. Interview with the Research Directorate.

France. 7 January 2020. Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (OFPRA). Inde : Le regime juridique des Tibétains. [Accessed 12 Jan. 2022]

The Hindu. 4 February 2018. Vijaita Singh. "Centre Opens Gates Wider for Tibetans Going Abroad." [Accessed 22 Nov. 2021]

Hindustan Times. 26 June 2017. "Govt Sets Conditions for Tibetans to Get Passports, Says Move Out of Settlements, Forgo Benefits." [Accessed 29 Dec. 2021]

India. 13 February 2021. Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Annual Report 2019-20. [Accessed 16 Nov. 2021]

India. 17 September 2018. Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). "Office Memorandum." No. VI/441/01/16, Vol. VI. [Accessed 25 Sept. 2021]

India. 9 February 2018. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Sonam Lhanzom v. Union of India. Writ Petition (Civil), No. 1021 of 2018, CM Appl., No. 4303 of 2018. [Accessed 25 Sept. 2021]

India. 2018. Passport (1^st Amendment) Rules, 2018. [Accessed 10 Feb. 2021]

India. 7 November 2017. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Tamding Dorjee v. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs. Writ Petition (Civil), No. 7577 of 2017. [Accessed 16 Nov. 2021]

India. 29 August 2017. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Karma Gyaltsen v. Union of India. Writ Petition (Civil), No. 6074 of 2014, CM, No. 14780 of 2014. [Accessed 16 Nov. 2021]

India. 22 September 2016. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs. Writ Petitions (Civil), Nos. 3539 of 2016, 4275 of 2016 & 7983 of 2016. [Accessed 25 Sept. 2021]

India. 7 August 2013. High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. Tenzin Choephag Ling Rinpoche v. Union of India. Writ Petition, No. 15437 of 2013 (GM-PASS). [Accessed 1 Feb. 2022]

India. 22 December 2010. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Namgyal Dolkar v. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs. Writ Petition (Civil), No. 12179 of 2009. [Accessed 2 Feb. 2022]

India. 1967. The Passports Act, 1967. [Accessed 20 Dec. 2021]

India. 1955 (amended 2019). The Citizenship Act, 1955. [Accessed 25 Sept. 2021]

India. 1949 (amended 2019). The Constitution of India. [Accessed 25 Sept. 2021]

India. N.d.a. Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). "Citizenship of India: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)." [Accessed 24 Sept. 2021]

India. N.d.b. Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Consular, Passport & Visa Division. Instructions for Filling of Passport Application Form and Supplementary Form. [Accessed 16 Nov. 2021]

The Indian Express. 11 September 2018. Rahul Tripathi. "'Tibetan Refugees Down from 1.5 Lakh to 85,000 in 7 Years'." [Accessed 20 Dec. 2021]

NewsBytes. 5 April 2018. Gogona Saikia. "Get Faster 'Out-of-Turn' Passports Without Extra Fee." [Accessed 4 Feb. 2022]

Scholar, university in New Delhi. 8 December 2021. Interview with the Research Directorate.

Seetharaman, Abhinav. April 2020. "Tibetan Refugees in India: The Challenges of Applying for Indian Citizenship." Revue d’Études tibétaines. No. 54. [Accessed 25 Sept. 2021]

Thomson Reuters Foundation. 21 June 2017. Abhishek Madhukar and Rina Chandran. "Sixty Years After Fleeing Tibet, Refugees in India Get Passports, Not Property." [Accessed 16 Nov. 2021]

Tibetan Review. 24 September 2018. "Way Cleared for Tibetan Citizens of India to Apply for Passport." [Accessed 27 Sept. 2021]

Tibetan Review. 12 February 2018. "Tibetans Opting for Indian Citizenship by Registering as Voters Told to Surrender Their Foreigner's Registration Certificate." [Accessed 10 Feb. 2022]

Tibetan Review. 16 May 2016. "Petition Asks High Court to Direct New Delhi to Issue Passport to Eligible Tibetans." [Accessed 12 Jan. 2022]

Tibetan Review. N.d. "About Us." [Accessed 12 Jan. 2022]

The Tibet Express. 12 February 2018. Lobsang Tenchoe. "Tibetans Holding Indian Voter ID Cards Should Surrender Their RB Within One Month: Kangra SP." [Accessed 10 Feb. 2022]

Tibet Justice Center (TJC). June 2016. Tibet's Stateless Nationals III: The Status of Tibetan Refugees in India. [Accessed 27 Sept. 2021]

Tibet Justice Center (TJC). N.d. "About Us." [Accessed 3 Feb. 2022]

The Times Group. N.d. "About Us." [Accessed 7 Feb. 2022]

The Times of India. 11 February 2018. Shri Puri. "Surrender RCs if Registered as Indian Voters, Tibetans Told." [Accessed 10 Feb. 2022]

The Times of India. 3 November 2017. Ajay Sura. "Himachal Polls 2017: In a First, Tibetans Register to Vote." [Accessed 12 Jan. 2022]

United States (US). 30 March 2021. Department of State. "India." Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020. [Accessed 27 Sept. 2021]

The Washington Post. 9 October 2017. Vidhi Doshi. "After Nearly Six Decades of Exile, Some Tibetans in India Are Slowly Letting Go of the Past." [Accessed 16 Nov. 2021]

Additional Sources Consulted

Oral sources: Canada – Canadian High Commission in New Delhi; Canada Tibet Committee; Central Tibetan Administration – Office of Tibet in Washington, DC; Centre for Studies in Social Sciences Calcutta; Citizens Against Hate; India – Embassy of India in Washington, DC, High Commission of India in Ottawa; International Campaign for Tibet; professor and socio-cultural anthropologist at a university in the US whose research focuses on Tibetan society; professor of human geography at a university in the UK whose research focuses include political legitimacy in marginalized communities, notably the Tibetan exile community; professor of international affairs at a university in the US whose research focuses on China's foreign relations and who has published articles on Tibetans in India and China; professor of law at a university in the US whose research focuses on human rights, refugee, and constitutional law in India.

Internet sites, including: Amnesty International; BBC; Canterbury Christ Church University; Central Tibetan Administration – Tibetan Policy Journal; ecoi.net; Factiva; Freedom House; The Guardian; Human Rights Watch; Manipur International University; Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses; Press Trust of India; Tibet Sun; The Tribune [India]; UK – Home Office; UN – Refworld, UNHCR; US – US Commission on International Religious Freedom; The University of Texas at Austin.