SIR-linked passport denial creates a disqualification Parliament never enacted: CPI(M) leader John Brittas
CPI(M)Rajya Sabha leader John Brittas has said that denial of passport to a citizen whose name was deleted from the electoral rolls in the Special
CPI(M)Rajya Sabha leader John Brittas has said that denial of passport to a citizen whose name was deleted from the electoral rolls in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) extends beyond an individual grievance and raises broader constitutional questions about the administration of the Passports Act, 1967. In a letter to External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on Monday (June 29, 2026), Mr. Brittas urged the Minister to intervene in the case of senior journalist and formerTelegraph editor Rajagopal Ramadas, who was denied renewal of his passport since his name was deleted from the electoral rolls in the ongoing SIR in West Bengal.
Also read | SIR: Citizens, citizenship, and Right to Vote Ramadas had been issued an Indian passport in 2005 and had it renewed in 2015, with no change in his identity, address, parentage, or nationality. The communication issued by the Regional Passport Office cited only one adverse circumstance: “Voter list deleted from SIR”. If that was the sole basis for refusing renewal, Mr. Brittas said, it could create a precedent with nationwide implications for passport administration. The CPI(M) leader contended that though the government has consistently maintained that a passport is not conclusive proof of citizenship, this claim does not diminish the document’s legal significance.
A passport, he argued, represents a statutory determination made by a competent authority under a Parliamentary enactment and cannot be rendered meaningless by a provisional administrative decision taken under a different law. Referring to Supreme Court judgments in Satwant Singh Sawhney and Maneka Gandhi, Mr. Brittas said the right to travel abroad forms part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and that decisions under the Passports Act must satisfy standards of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. He also noted that the Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of the SIR, had reiterated that the Election Commission’s exercise is confined to preparation of electoral rolls and does not amount to adjudication of citizenship.
“The larger constitutional issue is whether the sovereign assurance represented by an Indian passport shall continue to command the confidence of citizens, foreign governments and the Republic itself, or whether that assurance may thereafter be rendered uncertain by a provisional administrative consequence arising under an entirely different statutory regime,” Mr. Brittas said.
The BriefWire