Aadhaar & Voter ID Not Proof Of Citizenship; Compliance With Visa Rules Mandatory When Records Show Foreign Nationality: Telangana HC

The High Court of Telangana has declined to grant relief to a man who claimed Indian citizenship by birth and sought directions restraining the police and immigration authorities from compelling him to apply for a Long Term Visa (LTV).

The Court held that documents such as Aadhaar card, voter ID, PAN card, driving licence and educational certificates cannot, by themselves, establish citizenship, particularly where official records indicate foreign nationality and statutory verification is ongoing.

Justice Nagesh Bheemabaka disposed of the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to produce any conclusive statutory proof of Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and that the actions of the authorities were in furtherance of compliance with visa regulations and Government orders applicable to Pakistani nationals.

The petitioner approached the High Court, alleging that the Inspector of Police, Pakistan Branch, Special Branch, Hyderabad, had been repeatedly visiting his residence and compelling him to apply for an LTV, while threatening to initiate prosecution, without issuing any notice. He contended that such action violated Articles 5, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and sought directions restraining the authorities from harassing him or interfering with his marital and family life.

He asserted that he was born in Hyderabad, had been residing continuously in the city for over three decades, was married to an Indian citizen, and was leading a settled family life with his wife and children. He claimed Indian citizenship by birth and stated that he had never been required to apply for an LTV since childhood.

The petitioner's case was linked to the status of his mother, who was born in Hyderabad but later married a Pakistani national and obtained a Pakistani passport. According to the petitioner, his mother never relinquished her Indian citizenship and had been residing in India since 1994. Her status is the subject matter of an earlier writ petition pending before the High Court.

Opposing the petition, the State relied on official records indicating that the petitioner had been recorded as a Pakistani national, whose name was included in his mother's Pakistani passport, and who had never been granted Indian citizenship or a Long Term Visa. The authorities referred to a Memorandum dated 04.06.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, directing an enquiry into the petitioner's status.

The State further relied on a Government of India order dated 28.04.2025 mandating that all Pakistani nationals holding Long Term Visas and who have not obtained Indian citizenship must apply afresh for LTVs. It was stated that both the petitioner and his mother had applied for re-issuance of LTVs in July 2025. The authorities also pointed out discrepancies in the petitioner's identity particulars, including differences in name and year of birth across records.

The central issue before the Court was whether the petitioner, whose nationality was disputed in official records, could seek a writ restraining statutory authorities from requiring him to comply with visa regulations, and whether reliance on identity documents such as Aadhaar, voter ID, and PAN card was sufficient to establish Indian citizenship.

The High Court held that the petitioner had not produced any conclusive statutory proof of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955, such as a certificate of registration or naturalisation, or a valid Indian passport. The Court observed that identity documents like Aadhaar card, voter ID, PAN card, driving licence and educational certificates cannot, by themselves, confer or establish citizenship, particularly when the statutory framework governing foreigners requires determination of nationality based on passport, visa status and orders passed by competent authorities under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The Court rejected the plea of violation of principles of natural justice, holding that the actions complained of were part of an ongoing statutory verification and compliance process initiated pursuant to the Memorandum and the Government of India order dated 28.04.2025. The Court observed that officials' visits to ensure compliance with visa requirements could not be equated with coercive or punitive action without due process.

It also noted that the petitioner's mother's status itself was pending adjudication in an earlier writ petition and that, in such circumstances, the petitioner, whose status was “derivative and disputed”, could not seek a blanket declaration restraining authorities from performing their statutory duties under the Foreigners Act, the Foreigners Order, 1946, and the Visa Manual, 2019.

Subsequently, noting that both the petitioner and his mother had applied for LTVs in July 2025 under the Government order, the Court directed the authorities to consider their applications and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the applicable guidelines at the earliest.

Syed Ali Hussain Razvi v The Government of Telangana

WP No. 25501 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order