CRUX: MEHBOOBA MUFTI VS UNION OF INDIA – J&K HC dismisses Mehbooba Mufti’s plea for passport.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 29th March 2021
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey
PARTIES
- Appellant - Mehbooba Mufti
- Respondents - Union of India
COUNSEL:
- Mr Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Senior Advocate with Ms Humaira Shafi, Advocate.
- Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, ASGI for R-1 & 4, Mr B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG for R-2, 3 & 5.
SUMMARY: The High court of J&K held that denial of issuance of passport for Mehooba Mufti was valid and lawful.
ISSUE: The issue before the court was whether the denial of issuance of passport of the petitioner was valid and lawful or not
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Article 21 of the constitution of India.
- Section 6 of the passport act, 1967
- Section 6 (2)(C) of the passport act, 1967
- Section 11 of the passports act, 1967
OVERVIEW
1. The petitioner Mehbooba Mufti submitted an application for issuance of passport before Passport Office, Srinagar under file number - SG1065057682420 on 11th December 2020.
2. It was contended by the petitioner that as per Ministry of External Affairs and the Government of India, the passport is required to be issued within 30 days from the date of receipt of application however in this case no passport was issued despite the lapse of more than 3 months. After inquiring into the matter, she found out on the website that application was - "Pending for physical police verification at respective thana under SP office district Srinagar."
3. Thereafter the petitioner claims to have approached senior superintendent of Police Srinagar on 13 February 2021 with the request to forward the police verification report to the concerned passport office. As no action was taken the petitioner approach the court for the following relief(s) -
a) that the high court issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the passport.
b) issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of respondent in not allowing the petitioner to travel abroad as illegal and unconstitutional violating the petitioners fundamental right to travel abroad as guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian constitution.
4. The counsel for respondents put forward the observations that -
- The fresh passport application was received on 14th December 2020 and as per norms it was forwarded for police verification report on the same date.
- The PVR in favor of all passport applications belongs to J&K and is mandatory and J&K CID is the nodal agency in this regard.
- The PVR received from Director General of Police, J&K CID do not favor for issuance of passport and returned as "not recommended passport case" on 18th of March 2021.
- The refusal was found under provisions of section 6 (2)(C) of the passport act 1967.
5. The counsel for respondent further contended that the petition filed by the the petitioner deserve to be dismissed as no such direction can be issued by this court in the matter for issuance of the passport in favor of the petitioner, which is contrary to scheme of law governing the subject.
6. The council for the respondent stated that the petitioner has the remedy to appeal to joint secretary and Chief passport officer Ministry of external affairs Patiala House New Delhi against the refusal order made by respondent but in 30 days the order under section 11 of the passports act 1967 as it is the adequate appellant authority under the said act.
ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT
1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that section 11 of the passports act 1967 is not applicable to the present case as the rejection order of the passport of the petitioner has been purportedly issued by respondent number 4 under section 6 of passport act which is not covered for appeal under section 11 of the said act.
2. After hearing both the councils and considering the matter on hands and pursuing the records available on the file the court held that -
As per the scheme of law governing the grant or otherwise of passport in favor of citizens of this country the concerned passport authority upon the reception of an application from an individual seeking for issuance of passport in their favor has to seek appropriate report from the police/CID authorities concerned. And on the basis of such report that it can grant or refuse the passport in favor of the said individual.
3. In the said case the Police Verification Report received by the passport office Srinagar did not recommended issuance of the passport in favor of the petitioner, the respondent consequently refuse issuance of passport.
4. In such circumstances the court held that no direction can be issued by the court for issuance of passport in favor of the petitioner. The scope of this court in the matter of issuance or refusal of passport in favor of an individual is very limited and the court can only direct the concerned authorities to consider the case of an individual in the light of mandate on the scheme of law governing the subject.
5. Besides the court finds substance in the argument of the respondent that the petition have no absolute right to demand a passport in her favor which was also the law laid down by the honorable supreme court of India in the case titled Satwant Singh Sawhney vs Assistant passport officer, New Delhi.
6. The judge further held -
" In the above background, I do not find any reason to interfere with the course of action adopted by the respondents in this case, as a sequel thereto, the petition of the petitioner is hereby dismissed, along with the connected CM(s). Interim directions(s), if any subsisting as on date, shall stand vacated. It is, however, made clear here that dismissal of the Writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner for availing the remedy as may be available to her in accordance with the law."
CONCLUSION
The present case was brought forward when the former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir and the PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti approached the high court for relief in the matter of issuance of her passport. When the passport office of Srinagar denied her application for issuance of passport, she argued before the High court that it was violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution and the passport should be issued immediately.
But as the case proceeded the court held that after observing both the parties, the facts of the case, and the matter present on the file, there was no malafide intention on the part of Passport Office and the actions has taken place under accordance of the law and the court cannot interfere in the matter.
The High court bench said - "I do not find any reason to interfere with the course of action adopted by the respondent in the case as a sequel thereto the petition of the petitioner is dismissed."
However, the petitioner, Mehbooba Mufti tweeted about her grievances and demanded an explanation as to how she and her mother who is well in her seventies can be a threat to the national security. She further claimed that all this was just a method by the government of India to harass and punish her for not toeing their line.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
