ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2.Harina has petitioned this Court for directing the Central Government to issue passport to her. Her parents are Srilankan citizens. They escaped to India to avoid persecution in the country of their birth. What happened and what is happening in Srilanka are matters of common knowledge. Frontline magazine in its Issue dated 13.01.2023 has carried an article titled “Srilankan Tamil Hindus seek India's support as Sinhala Government targets temples”.

3.The petitioner's parents were housed in the refugee camp at Rayanoor, Thanthondrimalai, Karur District. Harina was born in Government Hospital, Kodankipet Village, Karur District on 24.02.2002. She did her schooling in the same District. She studied in Michael Job College of Arts and Science for Women affiliated to Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore. She now wants to go abroad for employment. Obviously, she requires passport. Her efforts to obtain an Indian passport have been in vain. Hence, she filed the present writ petition.

4.The learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government points out that since the petitioner was born after the cut-off date i.e., on 01.07.1987, she cannot claim Indian citizenship as a matter of right. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sarbananda Sonowal v. UOI (2005) 5 SCC 665, he submitted that a child born in India to an illegal immigrant after the cut-off date is also not eligible for citizenship. According to him, the petitioner can apply for citizenship by naturalization and that it would be considered on merits by the competent authority.

5.I grant liberty to the petitioner to apply for Indian citizenship by naturalization under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act. But I know that it is a long journey and may not afford immediate relief to her.

6.I was wondering if there was a way out. Advocate Shri.Arun Balaji, who was present in the court drew my attention to Section 20 of the Passports Act, 1967. The said provision reads as follows:

“Issue of passports and travel documents to persons who are not citizens of India.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions relating to issue of a passport or travel document, the Central Government may issue, or cause to be issued, a passport or travel document to a person who is not a citizen of India if that Government is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do in the public interest.”

The reason for incorporating the aforesaid provision is set out in Clause 20 of Objects and Reasons in the following terms :

“Under this clause, a passport can be refused on the ground that the applicant is not a citizen of India. But, in special cases, having regard to international convention and usage, it may become necessary for the Government to issue a passport or travel document to a person who is not a citizen of India. This clause seeks to give necessary powers to the Central Government in this behalf.”

The above provision empowers the Central Government to issue passport or travel document even to a non-citizen. Any power is coupled with duty. Parliament in its supreme wisdom chose to incorporate such a provision to deal with situations such as the one on hand. Of course, one requirement must be satisfied. The Central Government must be of the opinion that it is necessary so to do in the public interest. The question is whether the said power deserves to be exercised in this case.

7.The writ petitioner was born and brought up in India. Her parents have lost their roots in the country of their origin. The petitioner is not in a position to go to Srilanka and take a Srilankan passport. This is because, under Section 5 (2) of the Citizenship Act of Srilanka, a person born outside Ceylon on or after the appointed date shall have the status of a citizen of Ceylon by descent, if at a time of his birth, his father is a citizen of Ceylon and if, within one year from the date of birth or within such further period as the Minister may for