Mere Adverse Police Report Alone Cannot Justify Passport Denial: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that an adverse police verification report does not, by itself, disqualify a citizen from their legal right to obtain a passport.
The case arose when a 34-year-old woman filed a petition challenging the rejection of her application to renew her passport. The woman, who had held a passport from 2012 to 2022, had her renewal application denied due to an adverse police verification report, which raised doubts about her nationality, suggesting that she might be Nepali.
A Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said, “Adverse Police Verification report per se does not dis-entitle a citizen from his legal right to have a passport. It is for the Passport Authority to take into consideration the facts/antecedents of the person, who has applied for issuance of a Passport, alleged in the verification report, for deciding whether passport should be issued to him or refused,”
The Court clarified that the Passport Authority has the discretion to consider the contents of the police verification report along with other facts and antecedents of the applicant when deciding whether to grant or deny a passport. The Court stressed that the decision ultimately rests with the Passport Authority, and they must independently evaluate the facts rather than automatically following the negative police report.
Advocate Rakesh Chandel appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Manjeet Kaur appeared for the Respondent.
The Court explained that the Passport Act of 1967 allows the Passport Authority to inquire into the background of an applicant, including seeking a police verification report, to assess whether the passport should be granted. However, the inquiry is only a part of the process, and the final decision must be made by the Passport Authority, considering all circumstances.
The Court ruled, “Merely because the inquiry report received is adverse, the Passport Authority cannot differ from their own decision on issuance of Passport, nor they can refuse the same without applying mind to the facts stated in the report,”
The Court noted that there was no evidence to suggest that she was not an Indian citizen.
The Court found that the woman was born in Tihar Jail in 1990, had completed her schooling through the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), and had been issued a Permanent Account Number (PAN) card by the Income Tax Department. Additionally, she held an Aadhaar card, voter card, and driving license. Her father and husband were both permanent residents of India, further supporting her claim of Indian citizenship.
The Court dismissed the police report’s insinuation that the woman might be Nepali, emphasizing “Petitioner was admittedly born in India and her domicile of origin is India. The domicile of origin is a concept of law and clings to a person until he/she abandon it by acquiring a new domicile of choice. The petitioner was born in India and her domicile of origin is India and when her father and husband are permanent citizens of India, then the objection raised by the respondents remarked as “the photo identical nationality doubtful (Nepali)” is unsustainable.”
Therefore, the Court concluded that she was an Indian citizen by birth and set aside the decision to reject her passport renewal application.
The Court directed the authorities to decide her passport renewal application within eight weeks, while also clarifying that they could take further legal action if any adverse findings were discovered during that period.
Cause Title: Savitri Sharma v. Union of India & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Rakesh Chandel and Abhinav Bhandari
Respondent: Advocate Manjeet Kaur
