Case title:
Gulshan Nazir Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Order:
31/12/2022
Bench:
JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY
Parties:
Petitioner- Gulshan Nazir Through: Mr Jehangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr.Adv.,with Mr. Muzaffar Nabi Lone, Adv.
Respondent- Union of India & Ors. Through: Mr. T.M.Shamsi, DSGI, for R-1, 2 & 5. Ms Asifa Padroo, AAG for R- 3, 4 & 6.
SUBJECT
The passport officer cannot "serve as a mouthpiece" for the CID, according to the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, which criticised the government for denying the PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti's mother a passport.
During the hearing of Mehbooba Mufti's mother, Gulshan Nazir's petition, Justice M. A. Chowdhary stated that it appears there is no reason to deny her request for the issuance or renewal of a passport.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 6(2) of the Passport Act 1967
Refusal of passport travel documents. Etc.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority may refuse to issue a passport or travel document with travelling to any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground:
- That the applicant is not an Indian citizen,
- That the applicant may or is likely to engage in activities outside of India that are detrimental to the sovereignty and integrity of India,
- The applicant is a terrorist.
OVERVIEW
- Through this Writ Petition, the petitioner contested the impugned order made by the Joint Secretary, PSP and Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi, as well as the communication sent by the Passport Officer Srinagar, which had denied the petitioner's request for the issuance of a passport because Section 6(2)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 applied to her situation.
- The petitioner, who describes themselves as an older person, requested the issuance of a new passport on December 14, 2020, from the Passport Officer in Srinagar, who then requested police verification from the Additional Director General of Police CID J&K and Senior Superintendent of Police Srinagar.
- It was claimed that despite passing more than three months, the police verification report had yet to be submitted, forcing the petitioner to present a case before the senior superintendent of police and ask that the report be sent to the passport office in Srinagar as soon as possible. However, the report had yet to be submitted.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned orders maintainable or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- It is alleged that the appellant in this writ petition applied to respondent number 4, or the passport officer at the regional passport office in Srinagar, for the issuance of a passport in her favour. The passport authority denied the appellant's request, as mentioned above, despite the passage of several months, which compelled the appellant to file a writ petition with W.P. (C) No. 383/2021 before the writ Court.
- According to the learned senior counsel representing the appellant, the appellant can pursue the remedy provided by the Scheme. However, due to specific observations made by the learned Single Judge in an order/judgment dated March 29, 2021, the appellant was left with no choice but to file the current appeal.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- On the other hand, knowledgeable counsel argued on behalf of the passport officer that when issuing a passport in someone's favour, the passport officer must rely on the police verification report.
- CID approval is required for issuing any document, including a passport.
- He added that the passport authorities must follow the law after receiving "approval" to issue a passport in someone's favour.
- The passport authorities cannot grant a passport to a person in whose favour there is a negative report from the CID.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court ruled that nothing negative about the petitioner had been noted regarding any security concerns in the report cited by the respondents—the passport office and the appellant authorities.
- According to the Passport Act's rules, the passport officer cannot "close his eyes and to act on that" based solely on the Jammu and Kashmir Crime Investigation Department's (CID) report that suggests that a passport not be provided.
- Strongly criticising the authorities, it stated that the decision made by the passport officer and the appellant authority was "misplaced on account of security" because the petitioner's requested passport had not been issued. After all, the CID had not approved it for security clearance.
- The Court ruled that the passport officer's refusal lacked "application of mind."
- The Court stated that it is of the considered opinion that the legal justification for rejecting the petitioner's request for a new passport "is utterly untenable and unsustainable."
- The petitioner, who claims to be an octogenarian, cannot be denied her fundamental right to go overseas as an Indian citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution in the absence of any unfavourable security reports, it continued.
CONCLUSION
- This appeal is dismissed by giving the appellant the freedom to approach the proper authority to use the suitable remedy that is available to her under the Scheme, taking into consideration the position expressed by skilled counsel for the parties and with their consent.
- After receiving the appeal, the relevant authority is required to analyse it and reach a decision based only on the case's merits and per the Act's rules, regulations, and provisions, without regard to any observations made in the contested judgement from March 29, 2021.
- This Court has yet to give its opinion on the case's merits.
