TP v Minister of Home Affairs

Parties (including notable third parties)

TP (Applicant); Italian Minister of Home Affairs (Respondent)

---

Summary of Facts

The Applicant, TP, is a person of Tibetan origin born in India to Tibetan parents who resided and attended school in India until departing for Italy in 2007. Despite his long-standing presence in India, Indian authorities never recognised him as an Indian citizen, a refugee, or a stateless person. While TP was theoretically entitled to acquire Indian nationality under Indian law, he was instead issued an identity certificate in 2003 stating he was of Tibetan nationality and did not enjoy rights afforded to Indian nationals, including the right to vote or work for the government.

In 2008, the Consulate General of India in Milan refused to recognise TP as an Indian national or issue him a passport, reaffirming his Tibetan nationality. TP subsequently applied to the Tribunal of Rome for recognition as a stateless person under the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, which Italy has ratified.

The central question before the Tribunal was whether TP was a citizen of either India or Italy, and if he was a citizen of India, whether the treatment he received from Indian authorities effectively amounted to a denial of the protections and prerogatives linked to nationality.

---

Outcome

The Tribunal of Rome held that while TP qualified as an Indian citizen under Indian citizenship law, he was not recognised as such by Indian authorities. The Indian Consulate in Milan refused to recognise his citizenship or issue him a passport, instead issuing a certificate confirming his Tibetan nationality, which prevented him from accessing the rights ordinarily afforded to Indian nationals.

The Tribunal found that this treatment reflected a broader practice by India concerning individuals born to Tibetan refugee parents, as evidenced by Canadian and United States jurisprudence. The Tribunal stated that ‘the attitude of the Republic of India towards the applicant is equivalent in all respects to a denial of citizenship’, and emphasised that the impossibility of being recognised as a citizen of the country of his birth meant he could not enjoy the associated rights.

The Tribunal also examined whether TP could acquire Indian citizenship through alternative means. It found that the conditions for naturalisation under the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 were not met. Moreover, as TP was born in India between 26 January 1950 and 1 July 1987, citizenship would have been acquired automatically at birth under Section 3 of the Act, meaning no registration procedure was available to him. Regarding Italy, the Tribunal noted that TP had not acquired Italian citizenship under Law No 91 of 1992, as he was not married to an Italian citizen, did not have Italian parents, and did not qualify for naturalisation by other means.

Finally, the Tribunal observed that no other state considered TP a citizen, given that Tibet has not existed as an autonomous geopolitical entity for many decades. Accordingly, the Tribunal ruled that TP was stateless.

International, Regional and Domestic Instruments and Provisions Cited

Source	Instrument name	Provisions cited
International	1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons	Article 1(1)
Domestic	Indian Citizenship Act, 1955	Section 3, Section 6 Third Schedule) (c) and (d)
Domestic	Italian Law No 91 of 5 February 1992

UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines cited

This case does not cite UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines.

Available commentary

Paolo Farci, 'TP v Minister of Home Affairs (Sentence No 9140, 22 April 2014) (Tribunal of Rome)' (2021) 3(1) The Statelessness & Citizenship Review 93

• The article highlights that the Tribunal of Rome adopted a pragmatic approach to overcoming the ‘probatio diabolica’ (diabolical proof) in statelessness determinations. It accepted that circumstantial evidence and presumptions could be used rather than requiring a formal act of withdrawal of nationality, as requiring an applicant to provide thorough evidence that no state considered them a citizen would be diabolical’ (page 96).
• On evidence and burden of proof, the author notes that the Tribunal limited its evidential investigation to two fundamental elements (non-acquisition or loss of citizenship of the state of origin and failure to acquire citizenship of the state of residence) and engaged in the search for evidence by seeking documentation and requesting information from administrative authorities. This reflects a ‘protection-oriented approach’ that applies the principle of attenuation to the burden of proof under Article 2697 of the Italian Civil Code.
• Finally, the author positions the case as an important precedent for individuals of Tibetan origin born and residing in India as the Tribunal correctly engaged with Indian nationality law. He notes the subsequent case law from the Supreme Court of Cassation has strengthened procedural guarantees by ruling that judges have an ‘obligation to acquire official information,’ and that recognising that requiring stateless persons to challenge their state of origin's refusal of protections would impose an impossible burden.