Court directs Passport Authority to provide opportunity of hearing via video-conferencing to petitioner residing abroad before confirming refusal based on adverse police verification report under Passports Act, 1967.
In a significant judgment dated September 1, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, set aside the appellate order rejecting the passport renewal application of Asaf Ali Lone, an Indian citizen studying in Australia, and remanded the case for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized the paramount importance of procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice in cases where passport applications are refused based on adverse police verification reports.
The petitioner, Asaf Ali Lone, had applied for the renewal of his Indian passport at the High Commission of India in Canberra on February 1, 2024. Despite submitting a complete application, the process remained pending for over eighteen months without any decision or reasons communicated to him. After approaching the Delhi High Court earlier to seek direction for expeditious processing, the High Commission issued a refusal order on December 11, 2025, under Section 6(2)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967. The refusal was grounded on an adverse police verification report received from the Jammu & Kashmir Police authorities indicating that the petitioner was "Not Recommended" due to activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The petitioner challenged this refusal and subsequently filed a statutory appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act, which was dismissed by the Joint Secretary (Passport Seva Programme) and Chief Passport Officer on March 10, 2026. The appellate authority upheld the refusal solely based on the adverse police verification report without providing the petitioner an opportunity for hearing or disclosing the detailed material relied upon.
The Delhi High Court found serious procedural lapses in the manner the appeal was decided. It held that while the police verification report is a relevant and material component of the inquiry under Section 5(2) of the Passports Act, the Passport Authority cannot blindly rely on it without independently applying its mind and adhering to procedural safeguards. The Court underscored that Sections 5(2) and 6(2) of the Passports Act mandate that the Passport Authority must make such inquiry as it considers necessary and refuse passports only on grounds specified by law, including sovereignty and integrity of India.
Importantly, the Court observed that Rule 16 of the Passports Rules, 1980, mandates the appellate authority to provide the appellant a reasonable opportunity to represent their case before passing a final order. Given that the adverse police verification report was the principal basis for refusal and that the petitioner disputed the material underlying the report, the Court found that denial of a hearing violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the appellate process illusory.
Acknowledging the petitioner's current residence abroad, the Court directed that the opportunity of hearing be granted through video-conferencing to ensure effective participation. The appellate authority was instructed to reconsider the appeal afresh, after providing the petitioner a reasonable hearing, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within ten weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.
The Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the adverse police verification report itself, leaving such matters open for the appellate authority's consideration. The judgment reinforces the constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution relating to fairness, non-arbitrariness, and personal liberty, particularly the right to travel abroad.
This ruling serves as a reminder that passport authorities must balance national security concerns with fundamental procedural protections and transparency, especially when adverse police reports form the basis of refusal. It also highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual rights in administrative processes.
Bottom Line:
Passports Act, 1967 - Adverse Police Verification Report cannot be disregarded by Passport Authority but procedural safeguards, including the opportunity of hearing, must be followed while refusing a passport application.
Statutory provision(s):
Passports Act, 1967 Sections 5(2), 6(2)(b), 11; Passports Rules, 1980 Rule 16; Constitution of India Articles 14, 21
Asaf Ali Lone v. Joint Secretary (PSP) Chief Passport Officer, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2977688
