Adverse Police Verification Report Doesn't Per Se Disentitle Citizen From Legal Right To Have A Passport: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court has held that adverse police verification report per se could not dis-entitle a citizen from his legal right to have a passport.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the decision of issuing a passport or travel documents has to be taken by the Passport Authority alone and they cannot refuse such issuance without application of mind, solely because of an adverse police report.
The Court was hearing a writ petition that sought directions to the Government for renewing the passport of the petitioner. The petitioner was issued a passport in 2012 which was valid till 2022. The application for renewal was rejected by the Government without assigning any justified reason, as alleged by the petitioner.
It was submitted by the Government that the Passport office had sought verification report from the police and an adverse report was submitted with the remarks that there was a doubt about the nationality of the petitioner and she was suspected to be a “Nepali”. Since the identity of the petitioner was disputed during the police verification, the passport was not renewed.
Rejecting the argument put forth by the Government, the Court observed that no material was placed on record to show that the petitioner was not an Indian national. Instead, several facts were considered by the Court that proved otherwise.
It was highlighted that the petitioner was born in India, with a proper birth certificate. Both her husband and father were also permanent residents of India. She also had her Aadhar Card, Voter ID and Driving License issued by competent authorities. Furthermore, the Court opined that if she was not an Indian national, she should not have been issued a passport in 2012.
Based on this analysis, the Court held that the objection raised by the Government was unsustainable and their act of not renewing the passport was unjustified.
“The petitioner is neither a “Nepali” nor she possesses any document in this regard and there is no material which would raise any doubt as to the citizenship of the petitioner…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.”
Furthermore, the Court stated that the passport could be denied only on the grounds mentioned in Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 and the provisions clearly reflected that the Passport Authority was empowered to seek a police verification report before issuing the passport, but the decision had to be taken by the Passport authority alone keeping in view the inquiry. However, the authority was not bound by the report.
“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 passport authority is not bound by the adverse police verification report.”
The Court held that there was no material to show the basis on which the adverse police report was submitted regarding the nationality of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Government's act of not renewing the passport of the petitioner was set aside with a direction to renew the passport within 8 (eight) weeks.
Title: Savitri Sharma v Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 371