The Rajasthan High Court recently ruled that an adverse police verification in itself does not disentitle a citizen of her legal right to have a passport [Savitri Sharma vs Union of India]..The Passport Authority is not bound by the adverse police verification report, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand emphasised.“Adverse Police Verification report per se does not dis-entitle a citizen from his legal right to have a passport. It is for the Passport Authority to take into consideration the facts/antecedents of the person, who has applied for issuance of a Passport, alleged in the verification report, for deciding whether passport should be issued to him or refused,” the Court said. .The Court explained that since the provisions of Passport Act, 1967, allow the Passport Authority to make an inquiry before issuance of passport, it can seek a police verification report with regard to the antecedents of a person seeking the travel document.The purpose of such inquiry by the Passport Authority is to enable it to decide whether the passport should be issued or refused in the circumstances of each particular case, it added..However, the Court clarified that the decision in the end has to be taken by the Passport Authority alone, with the option to keep the inquiry report in mind.“Merely because the inquiry report received is adverse, the Passport Authority cannot differ from their own decision on issuance of Passport, nor they can refuse the same without applying mind to the facts stated in the report,” it said..High Court grants relief to woman suspected to be Nepali.The Court was hearing a 34-year-old woman’s plea against the rejection of her application for renewal of passport. The woman earlier had a passport between 2012 and 2022. The Centre opposed the plea on the ground that her application had been turned down due to an adverse police report which said her nationality was doubtful. .However, the Court granted relief to the woman after noting there was no material on record to show that she was not an Indian national. It noted that the woman was born in Tihar Jail in 1990, did her schooling from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and a Permanent Account Number (PAN) Card has been issued to her by the Income Tax Department.She also has been issued an Aadhaar card, voter card and driving license as well, it found. The Court also noted that she was married with both her husband and father being permanent residents of India..It, thus, concluded that she was an Indian citizen by birth. Further, the Court refused to accept the claim that she was a Nepali as insinuated by the police report.“Petitioner was admittedly born in India and her domicile of origin is India. The domicile of origin is a concept of law and clings to a person until he/she abandon it by acquiring a new domicile of choice. The petitioner was born in India and her domicile of origin is India and when her father and husband are permanent citizens of India, then the objection raised by the respondents remarked as “the photo identical nationality doubtful (Nepali)” is unsustainable.”.Had she not been an Indian national, then she would not have been issued the passport in 2012, it added..Hence, the Court set aside the decision to reject the woman’s application for renewal of passport. It directed the authorities to decide her application within eight weeks.However, the Court also said the authorities can proceed against her in accordance with law and due procedure if anything adverse is found..Advocates Rakesh Chandel and Abhinav Bhandari represented the petitioner.Advocate Manjeet Kaur represented the Central government..[Read Judgment]
