Back
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Orders Passport for 78-Year-Old Man Over 1988 FIR
In a significant ruling, the has directed the passport authorities to issue a passport to an 78-year-old petitioner, holding that a 38-year-old criminal case without a pending cannot justify the refusal of a passport.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, presiding over the , observed that once it is confirmed that no arising from the 1988 FIR is pending before any court, the authorities cannot deny the passport solely based on a .
The 38-Year-Old Cloud Over a Passport
Mohammad Ramzan Wani, a 78-year-old resident of Srinagar, had applied for a passport but was met with rejection. The reason cited was an adverse dated , which indicated his involvement in FIR No. 111/1988 registered at , under (attempt to murder) . The report had been forwarded by the to the .
Undeterred, Wani applied again online, only to have his application returned with the endorsement that the was "not clear" and the matter was "under review."
Court Seeks Ground Truth
During the proceedings, the High Court took a proactive step. By an order dated , it directed the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar , to submit a report on the status of the case. The response was clear: there was no pending case concerning FIR No. 111/88 titled .
The Core Legal Question
The central issue was whether the passport authorities could rely on a that mentioned an old FIR to deny a passport, especially when the criminal case had not culminated in a pending .
The respondents, represented by the and other authorities, argued that the verification report disclosed the petitioner's involvement in a serious criminal case, which justified the rejection.
However, the petitioner's counsel, , contended that the FIR was 38 years old and no was pending, making the denial arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's .
Key Observations from the Bench
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, after considering the report from the sessions court, made a crucial observation:
"In view of the report submitted by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, it is evident that no arising out of FIR No. 111/1988 is pending before the concerned court and once no such case is pending, respondent No. 1 and 3 cannot refuse to issue passport to the petitioner merely on the basis of the verification report submitted by the respondent No. 4 regarding involvement of petitioner in case FIR No. 111/1988."
The court emphasized that the mere mention of involvement in an FIR, without a pending , cannot be a lawful ground for denying a passport.
The Verdict and Directions
The High Court disposed of the with a clear direction to the passport authorities to decide Wani's application for issuance of a passport, notwithstanding the regarding FIR No. 111/1988. The court expressed confidence that the authorities would pass appropriate orders within three months from the date a certified copy of the order is made available.
"This Court is sanguine that the respondent No. 1 and 3 will pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the said respondents,"the court concluded.
The ruling reinforces the principle that passport issuance cannot be denied based on , and that the authorities must consider the actual pendency of a case rather than merely the registration of an FIR.
