A seemingly routine RTI response from the Ministry of External Affairs has triggered a much bigger question about government data, citizenship records and administrative accountability.
According to the response highlighted in the report shared above, the MEA said it does not maintain consolidated data on passports issued to non-citizens.
That sentence deserves considerably more attention than the outrage it has already generated.
Because the real question isn’t simply:
“How many non-citizens have Indian passports?” It is: “If the government can issue and regulate passports, why doesn’t it maintain a readily retrievable national record of exceptional cases where passports or travel documents are issued to non-citizens?”
First, an Important Fact Check
The headline can be misunderstood.
It does not mean that the Indian government has admitted that millions of foreigners are routinely receiving Indian passports.
Under Section 20 of the Passports Act, 1967, the Central Government can issue a passport or travel document to a person who is not an Indian citizen when it considers this necessary in the public interest.
So legally, there is an exceptional mechanism.
The controversy is therefore not:
“India gives passports to every foreigner.”
That would be false.
The more legitimate concern is:
“How effectively does the government track and report these exceptional cases?”
And that is a very different question.
A Passport Is Not the Same Thing as Citizenship
This distinction has also become particularly important following the MEA’s recent clarification that an Indian passport is primarily a travel document, rather than conclusive legal proof of citizenship. (NDTV)
That position is legally defensible because citizenship and passports operate under different laws.
The Citizenship Act, 1955 governs citizenship.
The Passports Act, 1967 governs passports and travel documents.
Former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Menon Rao has similarly explained that a passport can be powerful evidence of nationality in everyday circumstances without necessarily being the final legal determination of citizenship in every dispute.
But for ordinary citizens, the distinction creates an understandable question:
If a passport doesn’t conclusively establish citizenship, what does? That question becomes even more important when authorities themselves say they don’t maintain consolidated statistics on exceptional passport issuance.
This Is Ultimately a Data Governance Story
India loves talking about being a Digital India and a data-driven government.
Government databases track enormous amounts of information.
Passports are highly sensitive identity documents.
Applications undergo verification.
Passport numbers are recorded.
Issuing authorities know who received a document, when it was issued and under what category.
So when an RTI response says that a particular consolidated dataset isn’t maintained, citizens are entitled to ask:
Is the information genuinely not recorded? Or:
Is it recorded in multiple systems but not compiled into a central dataset? Those are two very different situations.
The latter would be a data-management problem, not necessarily an absence of records.
And the distinction matters enormously.
The Government Should Explain What “We Don’t Maintain Data” Means
There should be no ambiguity.
Does the MEA mean:
A. The information does not exist anywhere?
B. Individual records exist but there is no consolidated database?
C. The data exists but extracting it requires a manual exercise?
D. Different categories of non-citizens are recorded separately?
E. The government cannot reliably determine the total?
These questions could easily be answered through a detailed RTI response or parliamentary clarification.
And the public deserves that explanation.
Why This Matters Beyond Passports
This isn’t just about passports.
It raises a much broader administrative question:
Can a modern state govern effectively if it doesn’t maintain easily accessible aggregate data about important government functions? Good governance depends on measurement.
You cannot properly evaluate a policy if you don’t know:
how many people are affected;
how many documents were issued;
how many applications were rejected;
how many exceptions were granted;
how many were later cancelled;
how many cases involved fraud;
how many cases required investigation.
Without reliable data, accountability becomes extremely difficult.
And Here’s the Irony
We live in an era where governments can tell us:
How many people received subsidies.
How many Aadhaar cards exist.
How many passports were issued.
How many trains are running.
How many digital transactions took place.
But ask:
“How many exceptional passports were issued to non-citizens?”
And the answer reportedly becomes:
“We don’t maintain consolidated data.” That is precisely the sort of sentence that makes taxpayers raise an eyebrow.
But Don’t Turn This Into a Fake Scandal
There is an important caution here.
The RTI response does not prove corruption, fraud or mass issuance of passports to foreigners.
It also does not prove that the government has no underlying records.
And Section 20 itself establishes that issuing a passport or travel document to a non-citizen can be legally permissible in exceptional circumstances.
Therefore, claims such as:
“The government doesn’t know who has Indian passports.”
would be an irresponsible exaggeration.
The evidence supports a narrower—and more interesting—criticism:
The government apparently does not maintain the requested information as a consolidated dataset. That is enough to ask questions without inventing facts.
The Bigger Citizenship Paradox
This controversy comes at an especially sensitive time.
The government has recently clarified that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, while the passport itself is also not necessarily conclusive proof of citizenship.
That creates a very reasonable public-policy question:
What is the definitive documentary framework through which an ordinary Indian establishes citizenship? Citizenship is legally determined through the Citizenship Act and supporting records rather than one universal identity card.
But for ordinary people, navigating that distinction can be confusing.
If a citizen possesses:
Aadhaar → not citizenship proof
Voter ID → not conclusive citizenship proof
Passport → not conclusive citizenship proof
then the government needs to communicate clearly what documentation and legal records establish citizenship in different circumstances.
The Sarcastic Version
Citizen:
“How many passports were issued to non-citizens?”
Government:
“We don’t maintain consolidated data.”
Citizen:
“But you issue the passports?”
Government:
“Yes.”
Citizen:
“You verify them?”
Government:
“Yes.”
Citizen:
“You keep records?”
Government:
“Yes.”
Citizen:
“Then how many?”
Government:
“That’s where things get interesting.”
Welcome to the world’s largest democracy’s data department. Of course, that’s satire.
But the underlying question is serious.
What Should the Government Do?
The answer is surprisingly simple.
1. Maintain a consolidated statistical database
Not necessarily publicly identifying individuals, but maintaining reliable aggregate figures.
2. Publish annual numbers
For example:
passports issued to citizens;
exceptional travel documents;
passports/travel documents issued under special provisions;
cancellations and revocations;
fraudulent-document cases.
3. Explain the legal categories
Citizens should know exactly what constitutes a passport, emergency certificate, travel document and exceptional document.
4. Strengthen inter-agency data integration
MEA, MHA, immigration and passport authorities should be able to reconcile relevant datasets securely.
5. Protect privacy
Transparency should mean publishing statistics and methodology, not exposing citizens’ personal information.
The Real Question Is Accountability
This story shouldn’t be reduced to a partisan shouting match.
It doesn’t prove:
“Foreigners are being handed Indian passports.”
Nor does it prove:
“The government has no passport records.”
What it does reveal is a potentially uncomfortable gap between the enormous amount of information governments collect and the amount of useful information they can readily produce when citizens ask questions.
And that gap matters.
Because data isn’t just about statistics.
Data is how governments remember what they have done. Without reliable records, governments struggle to measure success, detect anomalies, identify loopholes and explain decisions.
Final Word: Don’t Ask for More Slogans—Ask for the Spreadsheet
India doesn’t need another argument about whether this is a conspiracy or a political attack.
It needs a straightforward answer from the MEA:
How many passports or travel documents have been issued to non-citizens under the exceptional legal provisions, year by year, and why is that information not maintained in consolidated form?
If the data exists in fragmented databases, say so.
If compiling it is difficult, explain why.
If there are genuinely no reliable consolidated records, fix the system.
Because a modern government should not be frightened by a number. And if the number is sensitive, the identities can remain private.
But the aggregate data should exist.
Digital India shouldn’t merely mean that the government collects data. It should also mean that the government knows what data it has.
