'Citizenship Must Be Decided First': Calcutta High Court Remarks While Declining Relief To Man Denied Passport Over SIR Exclusion

The Calcutta High Court's circuit bench at Jalpaiguri, on Tuesday, declined to grant relief to a petitioner whose passport application was kept on hold after his name was deleted from the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), holding that the question of his citizenship would have to be decided first.

Justice Kausik Chanda disposed of the writ petition by requesting the SIR Appellate Tribunal to take up the petitioner's pending appeal at an early date, but declined to issue any direction to the passport authorities to process or keep alive his passport application.

The petitioner, Sirajul Shekh, challenged the withholding of his passport application after his name was deleted from the electoral roll through a Supplementary Deletion List dated March 27, 2026. His statutory appeal against the deletion is pending before the SIR Appellate Tribunal.

According to the petition, Shekh is suffering from a gastrointestinal ailment and requires medical treatment abroad. He applied for a Tatkaal passport on May 26, 2026. The following day, the Passport Seva Kendra placed his application on hold and sought production of his original voter identity card. The petitioner contended that the document could not be produced since his electoral entry had already been deleted during the SIR exercise.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Avisikta Das submitted that a voter identity card is not a mandatory document under the Passports Act, 1967 or the Passports Rules, 1980, where identity, address and date of birth are otherwise established. It was argued that deletion from the electoral roll could not be treated as a determination of citizenship and that the passport authorities were not justified in insisting on production of the deleted voter identity card.

The petitioner further sought a direction for expeditious disposal of his pending SIR appeal, along with interim protection of his passport application until the appeal was decided.

After hearing the parties, the Court declined to issue any direction to the passport authorities. It was observed that the petitioner's citizenship issue would first have to be decided before any such direction could be granted.

During the hearing, the Court also remarked on the pendency of matters before the SIR Appellate Tribunal and observed that, considering the volume of pending cases, disposal of appeals could take 21 years.

The Court ultimately disposed of the writ petition by requesting the appellate authority to hear the petitioner's appeal at an early date.

Case: Sirajul Shekh v. Union of India & Ors.

Appearance: Ms. Avisikta Das, Advocate, with Mr. Biprojyoti Bhowmik, Advocate on Record, both through video conference.