Indian citizenship law has often been tested at the intersection of statutory text and administrative practice. For decades, uncertainty surrounded the status of persons born in India to Tibetan refugee parents between 1950 and 1987, with authorities adopting conflicting positions on whether such birth automatically conferred citizenship. This ambiguity affected thousands of individuals who, despite being born on Indian soil, faced denial of passports and other civic rights.
In its judgment dated 2 February 2026, the Delhi High Court provided decisive clarity. The Court held that any person born in India between 26 January 1950 and 1 July 1987 acquires Indian citizenship by operation of Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, regardless of the nationality of parents or the refugee background of the individual. The decision in Ms. Yangchen Drakmargyapon v. Union of India & Ors. reaffirms the primacy of statutory citizenship and limits the ability of executive instructions to dilute birthright entitlements.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Yangchen Drakmargyapon, was born in Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh on 15 May 1966 to Tibetan refugee parents. She later migrated to Switzerland, where her travel documents expired. Swiss authorities refused to renew her passport, stating that she was eligible to obtain Indian citizenship by birth and should approach Indian authorities.
Upon approaching the Indian Consulate, she received no written response. Left without any valid travel document, she approached the Delhi High Court seeking:
- Recognition of her status as an Indian citizen under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955;
- A direction to the Government to issue her an Indian passport.
The Union of India opposed the plea, arguing that Tibetan refugees and their children formed a separate class governed by the Foreigners Act and special executive orders, and that declaring Tibetan nationality in Identity Certificates amounted to renunciation of Indian citizenship.
Legal Framework: Citizenship by Birth
1. Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955
Section 3(1)(a) provides:
Every person born in India on or after 26 January 1950 but before 1 July 1987 shall be a citizen of India by birth.
This provision is automatic and unconditional, subject only to the narrow exceptions under Section 3(2) (children of foreign diplomats or enemy aliens).
2. No Requirement of Application
Unlike citizenship by registration (Section 5) or naturalisation (Section 6), citizenship by birth requires no application or governmental discretion. It accrues by force of statute.
3. Irrelevance of Parents’ Nationality
The law between 1950–1987 followed the principle of jus soli (right of soil) rather than jus sanguinis (right of blood). Therefore, the nationality of parents is immaterial.
Issues Before the Court
The Court framed key questions:
- Does birth in India between 1950–1987 automatically confer citizenship despite Tibetan refugee status?
- Can holding a Tibetan Identity Certificate defeat statutory citizenship?
- Do executive instructions under the Foreigners Act override the Citizenship Act?
- Does declaring Tibetan nationality amount to renunciation under Section 9?
Judicial Reasoning
A. Birthplace is Determinative
The Court held that the petitioner squarely falls under Section 3(1)(a) since she was born in India in 1966. None of the disqualifications under Section 3(2) applied.
B. Executive Orders Cannot Override Statute
The Government relied on the 1950 order regulating Tibetan entry into India. The Court rejected this, observing that subordinate legislation cannot defeat a parliamentary statute.
C. Identity Certificate Not Renunciation
Crucially, the Court ruled:
- Describing oneself as “Tibetan national” in Identity Certificate forms has no legal consequence;
- Renunciation requires a formal declaration under Section 8, which never occurred;
- Section 9 termination applies only to acquiring foreign citizenship, not mere description.
D. Reliance on Precedents
The Bench followed earlier Delhi High Court rulings:
- Namgyal Dolkar v. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (2010) – A Tibetan born in India is a citizen by birth;
- Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry Of External Affairs & Ors. (2016) – Executive circulars cannot curtail Section 3 rights;
- Tenzin Passang v. Union Of India & Ors. (2017) – Passport must be issued once citizenship is established.
Key Holdings
The Court conclusively held:
- Place of birth within India (1950–1987) is sufficient to confer citizenship;
- Refugee status or Tibetan ethnicity is irrelevant.
- Identity Certificates do not extinguish citizenship.
- Passport authorities must issue passports once the Section 3 criteria are met.
- Inter-ministerial decisions contrary to statute are unconstitutional.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court unequivocally held that the petitioner, having been born in Dharamshala in 1966, is an Indian citizen by birth under Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and such citizenship operates automatically without any requirement of application or governmental discretion.
The Court rejected the Union’s contention that possession of a Tibetan Identity Certificate or description as a Tibetan national amounted to renunciation, affirming that executive instructions under the Foreigners Act cannot override statutory citizenship rights.
Relying on settled precedents, the Court directed the authorities to issue an Indian passport, reinforcing that citizenship by birth is an inalienable legal status which cannot be diluted by administrative policy or refugee documentation.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams