Justice M A Chowdhary of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an applicant cannot be denied Passport merely for the reason that the family members of such Applicant have Criminal Antecedents.

The Court was dealing with a petition filled by the petitioner submitting that his Passport Application has been deliberately delayed by the respondents in order to carve out a false ground and reason for denying the passport to the petitioner due to adverse police verification report with remarks “Not Cleared” and “ may likely to misuse the passport”. It was further submitted by the petitioner that such adverse report was for the reason that the brother of petitioner was killed in a militancy related incident some years ago and that his father figures as an over ground worker (OGW) in the police reports but with no adverse report against the petitioner himself. He submitted that as such he cannot be denied passport.

Respondents contested the plea of petitioner stating that since brother of the petitioner was affiliated with HM, a banned terrorist organization and his father is an OGW of terrorists, as such under the given circumstances, the possibility of the applicant coming under duress, influence or extraneous pressure of anti-Indian Terrorist/separatist/secessionist outfits of elements of hostile foreign agencies has been assessed to be of very high probability; that after consideration of the field report, the case of the petitioner for issuance of passport has been disposed of “not recommended”

While Analysing the scope of Refusal of Passport at the touchstone of Section 6(2) sub-sections (a-i) of The Passport Act, 1967 the court observed that While the protection of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is available to a person, the said right cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a person who is an anarchist or a person attempting to destabilize the security and integrity of our State. It is precisely for those reasons that the provisions of Section 6(2) sub-sections (a) to (i) have been incorporated in the Passports Act, 1967.

The court further held that had there been any iota of allegation against the petitioner himself or his involvement in any subversive activities which could be deemed to be activities prejudicial to the security, sovereignty and integrity of the State the respondents would certainly be justified in not recommending the case of the petitioner for issuance of passport. But in the given facts the basis for not recommending the case of the petitioner for issuance of passport does not have any reasonable relation or nexus with the activities of the petitioner as the same do 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 non-recommendation of the case of the petitioner is based upon material which can be said to be nothing but in the realm of speculation. The petitioner cannot be deprived of his right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

While relying upon the law laid down in “Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam”, AIR 1967 SC 1836 , “Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and Another”, reported as (1978) 1 SCC 24 and OWP No. 551/2008 titled “Sajad Ayoub Bhat Vs. State and ors” the court Allowed the Petition directing respondents to re-submit the report uninfluenced by the conduct or activities of the brother of the petitioner as well as his father and pass an appropriate orders in favour of Petitioner.