3 min readNew DelhiFeb 4, 2026 11:41 AM IST
First published on: Feb 4, 2026 at 11:40 AM IST
The Delhi High Court on February 2 held that a stateless India-born Tibetan refugee, living in Switzerland as a “stateless” person, qualifies as a “citizen of India by birth” in terms of the Citizenship Act, and is entitled to an Indian passport.
Yangchen Drakmargyapon, “stranded” in Switzerland since 2014, was born in Dharamshala in 1966, and her eldest son was born in Darjeeling in 1995. With no valid travel documents as of the date, “effectively making her stateless,” she moved the Delhi HC through her counsel, Sanjay Vashisht, in 2024 seeking the court’s direction that she be granted an Indian passport, in recognition of “citizenship by birth” as provided under the Citizenship Act.
The urgency followed the demise of her husband, who wanted his ashes put to rest in India. Yangchen submitted that she has no travel documents or passport, which recognises her citizenship, thus making her unable to travel.
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) opposed Yangchen’s petition, submitting that Tibetan nationals and their children born within India, once registered as Tibetan refugees and have acquired an identity certificate (IC) amounts to voluntary renunciation of their Indian citizenship, and such foreigners can be granted Indian citizenship only by naturalisation or registration.
MEA even submitted that it is “under process” to challenge a bunch of orders pertaining to Tibetan refugees, where the Delhi HC had ruled in favour of Tibetan refugees, declaring them as Indian nationals. The Delhi HC orders, which MEA plans to challenge, date back to 2010.
Justice Sachin Datta, in an order made public Tuesday, found that Yangchen “squarely satisfies the requirement of Section 3(1)(a)” of the Citizenship Act, since she was born in India on or after January 26, 1950, and before July 1, 1987.
Relying on the past judicial precedents where Tibetan refugees born in India within the cut-off dates as prescribed under the Act have been recognised as Indian citizens, the court also held that MEA’s argument that Tibetan refugees with identity certificates amount to voluntary renunciation of Indian citizenship was “misconceived”.
To this effect, Justice Datta observed that Yangchen “has not renounced her Indian citizenship”, which requires a prescribed process involving a declaration of renunciation, registered by the prescribed authority.
Justice Datta also held that it cannot be said that her citizenship has been terminated as she has “clearly not acquired the citizenship of another country.”
“…the mere issuance of a “passport for aliens” or a temporary travel document under the Swiss legal framework cannot be equated with voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship…The petitioner, therefore, continues to retain her Indian citizenship, unaffected by the issuance of the said travel document,” the court held.
The Delhi HC orders, which MEA plans to challenge, date back to 2010. 
Share
