India is witnessing an extraordinary paradox.
On one hand, ordinary citizens are increasingly asked to produce documents to establish who they are, where they were born, whether they are citizens, and even whether they remain entitled to vote. A passport, despite being issued after rigorous scrutiny by the Government of India, is now officially described as “a travel document” and not conclusive proof of citizenship.
On the other hand, some of the country’s most influential organisations continue to exercise enormous social and political influence while raising broader questions about the transparency and accountability expected of institutions that shape public life.
This is not merely a legal contradiction. It is a constitutional one.
To obtain an Indian passport, an applicant must establish identity, date of birth, residence, and satisfy police and administrative verification. The government verifies that the applicant is entitled to receive an Indian passport. Yet, if citizenship is later questioned, the passport itself is said not to conclusively establish citizenship.
The irony is striking.
The Citizenship Act, 1955 provides a formal Certificate of Registration or Certificate of Naturalisation to foreigners who acquire Indian citizenship. Those certificates constitute direct legal evidence of citizenship. But for the overwhelming majority of Indians who are citizens by birth, the law provides no equivalent citizenship certificate. They are expected to piece together their legal status from birth certificates, school records, parents’ documents, and other supporting evidence.
In effect, the law creates greater documentary certainty for a person who acquires citizenship than for someone who has lived in India since birth.
This legal gap deserves reform.
If the State is satisfied enough to issue a passport after exhaustive verification, a valid passport should ordinarily create a strong legal presumption of citizenship unless fraud or statutory disqualification is established. Citizens should not be required to repeatedly prove the same status to the same State through an ever-expanding list of documents.
The principle at stake extends beyond citizenship.
Recent public debate has also raised questions about accountability for influential organisations. If ordinary citizens must repeatedly prove their identity, residence, and entitlement to vote, what standards of transparency should apply to organisations that operate across India, mobilise thousands of members, influence public discourse, and exercise substantial organisational capacity?
The question is not whether voluntary associations are lawful. Indian law permits people to associate freely. The question is whether influence should carry corresponding responsibility.
Power without accountability is inconsistent with constitutional democracy.
Every organisation that commands significant public influence should be able to identify the legal entities responsible for its finances, governance, compliance with tax and other applicable laws, and institutional decision-making. Public confidence is strengthened when organisations, like citizens, operate within transparent and identifiable legal frameworks.
Equally important is accountability for public conduct.
When office-bearers of influential organisations make statements that allegedly cross legal boundaries or are accused of inciting hostility or violence, the law will ordinarily assess the individual’s responsibility. But where there is evidence that organisational structures authorised, directed, or knowingly facilitated unlawful conduct, the legal system should also be capable of examining whether institutional responsibility arises. The principle is not unique to any one organisation; it reflects a broader question of how accountability should operate for influential associations in a constitutional democracy.
The larger issue is equality before the law.
Article 14 of the Constitution promises equal protection of the laws. Equality means that legal burdens and legal accountability should be applied consistently. If the State expects meticulous documentation from individual citizens before recognising fundamental democratic rights, it is equally reasonable to expect appropriate standards of transparency and accountability from institutions that wield considerable public influence.
Democracy cannot function on unequal presumptions.
It cannot presume suspicion when dealing with citizens while presuming unquestioned legitimacy for powerful institutions.
Documentation is important. Verification is important. Accountability is indispensable.
But these principles must operate uniformly.
A Republic earns the trust of its people not by demanding endless proof from the individual while asking comparatively little of the powerful. It earns trust when every exercise of public power—whether by the State, an influential organisation, or any other institution—is matched by corresponding transparency and accountability.
The Constitution demands nothing less.
Barrister Mohammed A Siddiqui