High Court: Passport Renewal Cannot Be Denied Solely on Unsubstantiated Police Report Doubting Nationality Without Material Evidence - 2024-11-14

High Court: Passport Renewal Cannot Be Denied Solely on Unsubstantiated Police Report Doubting Nationality Without Material Evidence

A High Court has ruled that the refusal to renew a passport based solely on an adverse police verification report casting doubt on the applicant's nationality, without presenting any material evidence to support such doubt, is unjustified and infringes upon the fundamental right to travel abroad.

The court, presided over by Anoop Kumar Dhand , J., was hearing a writ petition filed by an individual whose application for passport renewal had been rejected by the Regional Passport Office, Delhi.

Case Background

The petitioner held a passport issued in 2012, valid until May 16, 2022. Upon applying for renewal, the application was rejected based on an adverse police verification report dated August 7, 2022. The report contained the remark: " Photo identical Nationality doubtful (Nepali) as per applicant written statement." The respondents contended that the passport was not renewed due to the disputed identity and nationality raised by this report.

Petitioner's Evidence of Nationality

The petitioner asserted she is an Indian National, born in India at Central Jail, Tihar Complex, Delhi, in 1990, and possesses a birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Delhi. She also presented numerous other documents demonstrating her Indian identity and residence, including CBSE Higher and Senior Secondary School Certificates, PAN Card, Aadhar Card, Voter Card, and Driving License. Furthermore, her marriage certificate showed her marriage to an Indian national, and her father and husband are permanent residents of India. The petitioner argued that these documents, coupled with her birth in India to an Indian parent, conclusively establish her citizenship by birth under Section 3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The court meticulously examined the documents presented by the petitioner and the stance taken by the respondents. It noted that the petitioner had previously been issued a passport by the same authorities in 2012, implying her Indian nationality was accepted at that time.

Crucially, the court found that despite the adverse police report, "no material evidence has been placed on record disputing the same by the respondents." The court emphasized that the petitioner was born in India and meets the criteria under Section 3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, for acquiring citizenship by birth, as one of her parents was an Indian citizen at the time of her birth. The court stated, "Clearly, there is no material placed on the record by the respondents that the petitioner is not an Indian National."

The judgment highlighted the concept of 'domicile of origin', noting that the petitioner's domicile of origin is India as she was born there and her father and husband are Indian citizens. The court found the objection based on the police report remark "unsustainable" in light of this evidence.

Citing landmark judgments of the Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney Versus D. Ramarathnam and Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India , the High Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right forming part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. A passport is a necessary condition for exercising this right.

The court referred to Sections 5 and 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, which list the specific grounds upon which a passport can be refused or impounded. While Section 6(2)(a) allows refusal if the applicant is not a citizen of India, the court clarified that "Adverse Police Verification report per se does not disentitle a citizen from his legal right to have a passport." The Passport Authority must apply its mind to the facts in the report and other evidence; it is not bound by the adverse report alone.

Finding the respondents' action of refusing renewal based solely on an unsubstantiated police report arbitrary and unjustified, the court set aside the impugned action.

Conclusion and Directions

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to "dispose of the application for renewing the passport of the petitioner forthwith, without any further delay preferably within a period of eight weeks."

The court clarified that while the current refusal was invalid, it remains open for the respondents to take action against the petitioner if anything adverse is found against her in the future, provided due procedure permissible in law is followed. The ruling reinforces that administrative authorities cannot deny fundamental rights based on vague or unproven allegations, especially when the applicant provides substantial evidence to the contrary.