Read Time: 10 minutes

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Monday, comprising of single bench of Justice Ali Mohammad Magray, dismissed a petition filed by president of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Chief and former J&K Minister, Mehbooba Mufti seeking directions to the government and police authorities to issue passport to her which got expired on 19^th March, 2019. The bench observed that,

“…the scope of this Court in the matter of grant or otherwise of passport in favour of an individual is very limited inasmuch as the Court, in this behalf, can only direct the concerned authorities to expeditiously consider the case of an individual in the light of the mandate of the scheme of law governing the subject.”

The facts of the present case date back to December 2020 when on 11^th December 2020, the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of passport in her favour before the respondent No.4(Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Boulward Road, Srinagar).

“It is contended that, as per circular instructions issued, in this behalf, by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, the passport of an individual is required to be issued within 30 days from the date of receipt of application, but despite lapse of more than three months, no passport was issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, upon enquiry from the official Website pertaining to issuance of Passport maintained by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, claims to have come to know about the status of her application for seeking passport in her favour as under, Pending for physical police verification at respective Thana under SP Office, District Srinagar.”

Further, the petitioner, claims to have approached the respondent No.5 (Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar) on 13th day of February, 2021 with the request to forward the Police Verification Report (PVR) to the Regional Passport Office, Srinagar, but since no action with respect thereto was taken the petitioner prayed for the following relief from the Court:

“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to issue Passport in favour of the petitioner expeditiously;

b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not allowing the petitioner to travel abroad as illegal and unconstitutional violating petitioner’s fundamental right to travel abroad as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and

c) Any such order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may consider appropriate in the given facts and circumstances of the case.”

The High Court had, on March 9, sought the response of the Central government and the Union Territory of J&K.

On Monday when the matter was taken up for hearing, Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI), Tahir Majid Shamsi produced a communication issued by the passport office Srinagar which stated that the case of petitioner was found to attract refusal under provisions of Section 6(2)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967. The provision provide that passport can be refused if departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India. He further contended that the petitioner has the remedy of appeal to joint Secretary (PSP) and Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs against the refusal order made by the respondent within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order under Section 11 of the Passport Act, 1967.

On the other hand the counsel for respondent Jahangir Iqbal Ganai submitted that,

“Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967 is not applicable to the case on hand inasmuch as the rejection/ refusal order of the passport of the petitioner has been purportedly issued by the respondent No.4 under Section 6 of the Passport Act which is not covered for appeal under Section 11 of the Act of 1967.”

Taking account the facts and circumstances of the present case the court relied upon the Sc judgment Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi & Ors and observed that,

“…the considered view that no direction can be issued by this Court for issuance of passport in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the scope of this Court in the matter of grant or otherwise of passport in favour of an individual is very limited inasmuch as the Court, in this behalf, can only direct the concerned authorities to expeditiously consider the case of an individual in the light of the mandate of the scheme of law governing the subject.”

Hence, the court dismissed the present petition and noted that,

“I do not find any reason to interfere with the course of action adopted by the respondents in this case, as a sequel thereto, the petition of the petitioner is hereby dismissed, along with the connected CM(s).”

Case title: Mehbooba Mufti v. Union of India and Ors, 2021