Union Coal and Mines Minister G. Kishan Reddy on Friday, 27 June 2026, sharply criticised Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi for comments on passports and citizenship, calling them legally incorrect, misleading, and irresponsible. Reddy, who also serves as BJP Telangana state president, said Owaisi's remarks either reflected a fundamental ignorance of Indian law or were a deliberate attempt to create confusion among the public for political gain.

Context

Posting in Telugu, Reddy stated that Owaisi's comments on the passport-citizenship issue were 'చట్టపరంగా తప్పు' ('legally wrong') and 'బాధ్యతారాహిత్యంగా' ('irresponsible'). He noted that as a barrister trained at a prominent foreign institution, Owaisi was expected to understand the basic principles of Indian law, making his remarks all the more 'regrettable.' Reddy said the public would rightly expect a people's representative with legal knowledge to be aware of the clear statutory distinction between a passport and citizenship.

The minister was responding to remarks by Owaisi concerning a clarification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). Reddy underlined that the MEA had not said an Indian passport holds no value — it had only clarified that a passport alone is not the definitive proof of Indian citizenship.

Policy Backdrop

Reddy laid out the legal framework in detail. Under the Indian Constitution and the Citizenship Act, 1955, citizenship is determined by birth, descent, and naturalisation — not by any single administrative document. The Passports Act, 1967 — enacted during Congress rule — governs the issuance of passports and explicitly designates them as travel documents only.

Reddy highlighted Section 20 of the Passports Act, which empowers the Central Government to issue a passport even to a non-citizen if it is in the public interest — making it legally untenable to treat a passport as conclusive proof of citizenship. He also cited a 2013 Bombay High Court ruling that held possession of a passport does not by itself satisfy the requirements of the Citizenship Act. 'This is not a new rule introduced by the Modi government,' Reddy wrote, noting that the Passports Act has been in force since 1967 under Congress governance.

Citizenship, he emphasised, is established through legally recognised documentation such as birth certificates, parental records, school records, voter list entries, residence proof, and government records — alongside a passport and other contemporaneous documents — particularly when date of birth, place of birth, or parents' citizenship status must be verified.

Stakeholders and Impact

The exchange touches a politically sensitive nerve in India, where debates over citizenship documentation have intensified since the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2019 and subsequent discussions around a National Register of Citizens (NRC). Owaisi has been a prominent and vocal critic of both measures. Reddy's post is directed not only at Owaisi but at a broader public audience, seeking to clarify that the legal position on passports and citizenship has remained consistent across governments.

For ordinary passport holders, the legal distinction carries practical weight: citizenship rights flow from the Citizenship Act, 1955, not from the passport, which remains a travel facilitation document. Courts and government authorities may require a range of documents to establish citizenship, and a passport alone cannot substitute for that evidentiary standard.

What's Next

Reddy called on Owaisi to read the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Passports Act, 1967 before making further public statements on the subject. He urged leaders in constitutional positions to speak responsibly on such matters rather than stoking public anxiety for political benefit. Any formal parliamentary debate, MEA clarification, or court proceedings referencing this legal distinction in the coming weeks will determine whether the exchange remains a political flashpoint or is resolved through official guidance.