'Applicant Cannot Be Denied Passport Merely Due To Criminal Antecedents Of Family Members': J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the criminal family background cannot be used as a reason to deny a passport to the one applying for it. It also held that a mere speculative reason, in the absence of any direct evidence, cannot be considered a valid ground to restrain freedom of movement.

The court observed that there is no reason to not recommend the case of the petitioner for the issuance of a passport, just because of the involvement of his brother in militancy activities in the year 2011, when he was killed, and the listing of his father as an OGW for the grant of a passport in his favor.

A bench of Justice M.A. Chowdhary observed that "It should have been the activities of the petitioner which should have formed the basis either for permitting or rejecting the request for issuance of a passport in his favor. The basis for not recommending the case of the petitioner for the issuance of a passport does not have any reasonable relation or nexus with the activities of the petitioner, as the same does not even remotely connect the petitioner with any activity which could be termed as prejudicial to the security, sovereignty, and integrity of the State or the Country."

The Court noted that the Passport Act empowered the authorities to deny granting the passport to any applicant only if they are likely to engage in activities causing prejudice to the security of the state or to friendly relations with a foreign state. The court, however, pointed out that the reason for not recommending the petitioner's name was not based on any evidence of his personal self but merely on the speculative reason that he might have been influenced by family background, which cannot be accepted as a reason to deny it.

BACKGROUND

In this case, the petitioner, being a diploma holder in engineering, had applied for the issuance of a passport for travelling abroad to search for good jobs. The process involves verification by the CID (Respondent No. 4) before the passport authorities can grant the passport. The petitioner did not receive any response from the authorities even after waiting for a year and filed the petition before the instant court.

The court held that the petitioner cannot be denied the right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution based on the misdemeanours alleged to have been committed by his brother. The court directed the respondent (CID) to re-submit the report, uninfluenced by the conduct or activities of the petitioner's brother as well as his father, to the Regional Passport Officer within four weeks, who shall consider the case of the petitioner on the report and pass an appropriate order in favor of the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

APPEARANCE:

B.S. Bali, Advocate. FOR Petitioners

Vishal Sharma, DSGI

Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG For Respondents

Case-Title: Mohd. Amir Malik vs Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 33

Click Here To Read/Download Order