Jammu and Kashmir High Court Questions Fairness of Passport Notice to PDP Leader Naeem Akhtar

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has raised serious concerns over the fairness of a notice issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Srinagar, to PDP leader Naeem Akhter Andrabi, who is seeking an Indian passport. The court found that the notice, which demanded an explanation regarding adverse police verification reports without disclosing their contents, prima facie violated the rule of law.

Andrabi, a prominent political leader, applied for an Indian passport and completed all formalities. However, the issuance was stalled after the passport office received certain adverse police reports. The Regional Passport Officer issued a communication on May 21, 2026, requiring Andrabi to submit a suitable explanation along with supporting documents within thirty days, failing which his passport file would be closed. Andrabi challenged this notice in the High Court, arguing that he was not informed of the contents of the adverse reports and thus could not mount an effective response.

Represented by Senior Advocate Altaf Haqani, the petitioner contended that the passport authority had not disclosed the material on which it intended to rely, effectively denying him a fair opportunity to be heard. The respondent, Union of India, through Deputy Solicitor General T. M. Shamsi, submitted that if the court directed Andrabi to appear before the passport officer after disclosure, the passport file might already have been closed and may not be readily available for revival.

The court, presided over by Justice Rahul Bharti, observed that a citizen is presumed innocent unless proven guilty under law. Without being apprised of the adverse material, no effective explanation could be required from the petitioner. The notice did not even offer to disclose the contents of the reports upon the petitioner's attendance at the office. The court held that the communication failed to meet the essence of a fair administrative course of action, as mandated by the rule of law, which is essentially the rule of reason.

Justice Bharti stated, "A citizen of India is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty in accordance with law and, therefore, cannot reasonably be expected to furnish an effective explanation w.r.t. his credentials and antecedents without being apprised of the material sought to be relied upon against him." The court further noted, "The impugned communication , therefore, prima facie fails to meet the very essence of a fair administrative course of action or decision under the rule of law which governs this country."

The court rejected the respondent's suggestion that the passport file might be unavailable for revival. It directed Mr. Shamsi to bring the entire file relating to the petitioner's application and ordered the Regional Passport Officer, Srinagar, to appear in person to answer queries. The court expressed hope that the matter could be disposed of without full adjudication. The case is listed for further hearing on August 21, 2026.

This ruling underscores the importance of transparency and fairness in administrative decisions affecting fundamental rights, particularly the right to travel and hold a passport.