The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court instructed the passport officer to take into account the request for a fresh passport application from former J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, stating that the agency cannot serve as the "mouthpiece of the CID." It was decided that the police verification report could not supersede Section 6 of the 1967 Passport Act's legal requirements.
Justice M. A. Chowdhary overturned the decision that Mufti's mother Gulshan Nazir was denied a passport, ordering the passport officer to reexamine the situation and provide new decisions within six weeks.
The court ruled that even if the passport officer may limit a person's ability to go overseas based on the information at hand, the authorities must always make decisions entirely by the Passport Act of 1967.
Section 6 of the passport Act 1967
"There doesn't seem to be any reason to deny the petitioner's request for the issuing or renewal of a passport. There isn't even the slightest allegation against the petitioner that could raise any security issues. The legal requirements of Section 6 of the Passport Act 1967 cannot be overridden by the police verification report created by CID CIK "The court stated.
Senior Advocate Jehangir Iqbal Ganai had earlier argued on behalf of the petitioner that the CID report contained no allegations against her and that the passport officer had not used his judgment in rejecting her request for the granting of a passport.
He added that the petitioner is a senior citizen who is over 80 years old and questioned what security threat the nation might face if it issued a passport in her favour for international travel. He also stated that she is not a member of any organizations that are prohibited and has the right to travel anywhere in the world as an Indian citizen who values peace.
T. M. Shamsi, the deputy solicitor general of India, argued in opposition, saying that while issuing passports in someone's favour, the passport officer must depend on the police verification report. According to him, CID approval is required for the granting of any passport, and the passport authority cannot grant a passport to someone against whom the CID has issued a negative report.
police verification report
Justice Chowdhary observed that the police verification report was created about two cases because Nazir and her daughter Mufti's applications were handled concurrently. The police verification report (PVR) comments were recorded as: "Passport service not recommended and connected security clearance withheld" about both applications.
The court did note that the police verification report had been developed to highlight the security angles for the former Chief Minister's passport clearance, but that there had been "not even an ounce of allegation" regarding her mother that may have indicated the security worries of the State.
The court stated that the only information it had regarding the petitioner was a reference to an inquiry by the Enforcement Directorate and the CID CIK into some of the activities involving some bank accounts that they had either independently or jointly maintained with Ms. Mehbooba Mufti.
No objection to PMLA
The court further stated that the trial court must be asked for "no objection" about the PMLA. However, nothing in the records indicated whether or not a charge sheet had been filed against the petitioner, it stated.
The bench discussed Subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Passport Act, explaining that the clause states that a request for a passport renewal may only be denied for the grounds specified in Section 6 if the applicant's departure from India may or is likely to jeopardize India's security.
The court stated that the only aspect here is the reference to an investigation by two agencies, the Enforcement Directorate and CID CIK, about some of the transactions regarding some bank accounts maintained by the petitioner, either separately or jointly with Mufti. The court observed that nothing adverse has been recorded against the petitioner, without security concerns.
Court observation
The bench stated that the passport office did not have to close its eyes and do nothing because the J&K CID report did not suggest the granting of a passport. It further stated that security considerations made both the PassportOfficer'sr and the appellate authority's decisions inappropriate.
"In light of the facts and circumstances, the passport officer at the very least ought to have checked with the police and CID agency to see if there was any evidence against the petitioner. Without entering the PVR, the Passport Officer's rejection, in this case, would simply be characterized as mental indifference "Justice Chowdhary commented.
The court noted that the passport officer had relied solely on the PVR without first examining it and that, despite the report's extensive discussion of the petitioner's daughter and allusions to her beliefs and actions, the petitioner is not mentioned in it.
Conclusion
The court further stated that the appeal authority "appears not to have read the Police Verification Report and upheld the order of the Passport Officer, on the incorrect assumption of security without any justification."
After the aforementioned discussion, the bench concluded that the legality of the reason why the petitioner's request for a new passport was denied was untenable.
According to the court, "the petitioner, who claims to be an octogenarian, cannot be deprived of her fundamental right to travel outside of India as an Indian citizen in the absence of any adverse security report."
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
