The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that an adverse police verification report cannot, by itself, be grounds to deny an Indian citizen their legal right to a passport. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the case Savitri Sharma vs Union of India & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2602/2024), directed the authorities to renew the petitioner’s passport within eight weeks.
Case Background
The petitioner, Ms. Savitri Sharma, approached the court after her application to renew her expired passport was rejected by the Regional Passport Office. The rejection was based on a police report alleging that her nationality was “doubtful” and possibly Nepali, despite her possession of numerous documents proving her Indian citizenship, including a birth certificate, Aadhaar card, and PAN card.
Ms. Sharma, born in Delhi in 1990, presented her educational records, marriage certificate, and family ties to demonstrate her citizenship under Section 3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Represented by advocates Mr. Rakesh Chandel and Mr. Abhinav Bhandari, she argued that the denial violated her fundamental rights.
The Union of India, represented by Ms. Manjeet Kaur, defended the decision by citing the adverse verification report submitted by the police.
Legal Issues
The case raised several significant legal questions:
1. Validity of Police Verification Reports in Passport Applications:
– Can an adverse police report override valid documentary evidence of citizenship?
– The court evaluated the scope and limits of Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967, which outlines specific grounds for denial of a passport.
2. Fundamental Right to Travel Abroad:
– Is the right to travel abroad part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?
– The court examined precedents to confirm that the right to travel, though not explicitly stated, is integral to personal liberty.
3. Citizenship Under the Citizenship Act, 1955:
– Does the petitioner’s citizenship meet the requirements under Section 3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955?
– The petitioner provided evidence of her Indian birth and parental lineage to establish her citizenship, which the court assessed in light of the Act.
4. Role of Procedural Fairness in Administrative Decisions:
– Should authorities rely solely on police verification reports, or must they exercise independent judgment?
– The court considered the procedural obligations of passport authorities under Sections 5 and 6 of the Passport Act.
Court’s Observations
Justice Dhand made several important observations in the judgment:
1. Documentary Evidence vs. Police Reports:
– “The petitioner was born in India, has valid documents, and there is no basis to doubt her citizenship,” the court remarked, rejecting the adverse police report as insufficient.
2. Fundamental Right to Travel:
– Drawing on Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam (1967) and Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978), the court stated, “Withholding a passport effectively deprives a person of their right to travel, a liberty guaranteed by law.”
3. Role of Passport Authorities:
– Justice Dhand clarified, “The Passport Authority must independently evaluate the facts. A mere adverse report without supporting evidence does not justify rejecting a renewal application.”
4. Fairness and Due Process:
– The court emphasized the need for authorities to act lawfully and transparently. “An adverse police verification report per se does not dis-entitle a citizen from their legal right to have a passport,” it noted.
The Decision
The court quashed the rejection of Ms. Sharma’s passport renewal application and directed the Regional Passport Office to process the renewal within eight weeks. It allowed the authorities to take future action only if substantive evidence arises, ensuring procedural fairness.
