'Applicant Cannot Be Denied Passport Merely Due To Criminal Antecedents Of Family Members': J&K High Court

Post By 24law
February 13, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that an applicant cannot be denied a passport solely on the grounds of the criminal background of their family members. The court emphasized that the denial of a passport must be based on the applicant’s own conduct rather than speculative concerns arising from their family’s history.

Case Background

The petitioner, Mohd. Amir Malik, a 29-year-old diploma holder in engineering, had applied for a passport through the online process under File No. JM2065603398021 dated 06.09.2021. Seeking opportunities abroad, he completed the required formalities and awaited clearance. However, despite more than a year passing, he did not receive any decision from the authorities. Upon inquiry, he was informed that his passport application had not been cleared due to his late brother’s involvement in militancy and his father’s designation as an Over Ground Worker (OGW). The petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that there was no adverse material against him personally and that he was being denied his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution solely because of his family’s past.

Court’s Observations

Justice M.A. Chowdhary, presiding over the case, ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating: "It should have been the activities of the petitioner which should have formed the basis either for permitting or rejecting the request for issuance of a passport in his favor. The basis for not recommending the case of the petitioner for the issuance of a passport does not have any reasonable relation or nexus with the activities of the petitioner, as the same does not even remotely connect the petitioner with any activity which could be termed as prejudicial to the security, sovereignty, and integrity of the State or the Country." The court held that the non-recommendation of the petitioner’s passport application was based purely on speculation and lacked substantial evidence to establish any security threat posed by the petitioner himself.

Legal Framework

The court referred to the Passports Act, 1967, particularly Section 6(2), which allows authorities to refuse passports only if an applicant is likely to engage in activities detrimental to national security or international relations. However, in this case, the rejection was not based on any specific allegations against the petitioner but rather on assumptions regarding his potential influence due to his family’s history.

Fundamental Rights & Judicial Precedents

The High Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (AIR 1967 SC 1836) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, wherein the Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot be denied except through a procedure established by law. The court further referred to its own ruling in Sajad Ayoub Bhat v. State & Ors (OWP No. 551/2008), stating: "It is not permissible under law that when ‘A’ has committed a crime, ‘B’ should be punished. In the instant case also, the petitioner is sought to be punished for the alleged sins of some other person."

Court’s Direction

Based on these findings, the court allowed the petition and directed the CID to re-submit a report within four weeks, uninfluenced by the activities of the petitioner’s brother and father. The Regional Passport Officer was then instructed to reconsider the petitioner’s application and pass an appropriate order within two weeks thereafter.