Asaf Ali Lone vs Joint Secretary (Psp) Chief Passport Officer & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 25.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 01.09.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 05.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010165102026
+ W.P.(C) 5299/2026, CM APPL. 25981/2026 & CM APPL.
39227/2026
ASAF ALI LONE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prasanna S., Mr. John
Smite, Ms. Injila Muslim
Zaidi, Mr. Maamidi Ashish
Reddy, Mr. Prasanna B., Ms.
Ishita Tulsyan, Advocates
versus
JOINT SECRETARY (PSP) CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with
Mr. Akshay Sharma, Mr. Dev
Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun
Pratap Singh, Mr. Yogya
Bhatia, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. The petitioner has instituted the present writ petition seeking
the following reliefs:
“...a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 1 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
writ, order or direction quashing the appellate order
bearing No. VIII/402/App-37/2026 dated 10.03.2026
passed by the Joint Secretary (Passport Seva Programme)
and Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs
under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967, arising out of
the refusal order bearing No. CAN/CW/MISC/35/2025
dated 11.12.2025 issued by the High Commission of India,
Canberra.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the Respondents to reconsider
and decide the Petitioner's passport renewal application
bearing File No. AU1075145265124...”
2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 10.03.2026 bearing
No. VIII/402/App-37/2026 passed by respondent no. 1, i.e. the Office
of Joint Secretary (PSP) & Chief Passport Officer [hereafter „ Chief
Passport Officer ‟] under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967
[hereafter „ Passports Act ‟], whereby the petitioner‟s statutory appeal
has been rejected, thereby affirming the refusal order dated
11.12.2025 issued by respondent no. 2, i.e. High Commission of
India, Canberra [hereafter „ HCI, Canberra ‟] under Section 6(2)(b)
of the Passports Act.
3. The petitioner states that he is an Indian citizen and is presently
pursuing his studies at the Australian National University (ANU),
Canberra. He had applied for renewal of his passport on 01.02.2024.
His grievance is that, despite submission of a complete application,
the same remained unprocessed for about eighteen months, without
any reasons being disclosed to him or any decision being
communicated by the concerned Passport Authority, i.e. HCI,
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 2 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
Canberra. In view of the prolonged inaction, the petitioner had
approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) 14017/2025 , seeking a
direction to the respondents to forthwith process and decide his
passport application in accordance with the Passports Act. During the
pendency of the said proceedings, this Court, vide order dated
27.11.2025 passed in CM Appl. 73232/2025, directed the
respondents to consider the petitioner‟s request for issuance of a
short-validity passport within a period of three weeks. The said
direction, however, was not complied with. Thereafter, HCI,
Canberra issued the refusal order dated 11.12.2025, rejecting the
petitioner‟s passport renewal application by invoking Section 6(2)(b)
of the Passports Act on the basis of an alleged adverse Police
Verification Report. The order dated 11.12.2025 passed by HCI,
Canberra reads as under:
“2. Whereas you had applied for renewal of passport to this
office vide passport Application Reference No 24-2000530562
dated 01/02/2024 via.VFS Canberra.
3. Whereas the personal particulars of passport file were
forwarded to J&K Police authorities for verification of
character and antecedent on 05/02/2024 sought Under Section
5 (2) of Passport Act 1967.
4. Whereas the J&K Police authorities uploaded adverse Police
Verification Report (Not Recommended) on the Passport portal
on 26.06.2024 with reference to part (B) of Police Verification
Report (relating to indulgence or likely to indulge in activities
which are prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India
& the security of India, friendly relations of India with any
foreign country or the interest of general public).
5. Whereas you were informed about the adverse report "Not
Recommended" on 27/06/2024 and 05/08/2025.
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 3 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
6. In light of adverse Police Verification report, your case was
found to attract Section 6 (2) (b) of the Passport Act 1967.
Pertinent to mention here that Clear Pre-Police Verification
Report is mandatory for issuance of Passports.
7. In light of the above facts your application for renewal of
Passport is REFUSED .
8. In case, you wish to go for an appeal against this order, you
may appeal to the Joint Secretary (PSP) and Chief Passport
Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Patiala House, New Delhi
within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order.”
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid refusal order, the petitioner
preferred a statutory appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act
before the Chief Passport Officer. The said appeal came to be
rejected vide impugned order dated 10.03.2026, which reads as
under:
“5. And now, therefore , having gone through all the records
and in the light of the full facts and circumstances of the case,
I, as the Appellate Authority, as per the provisions u/s 11 of the
Passports Act, 1967, decide the appeal as under:-
(i) HCI, Canberra received adverse Police report dated
26.06.2024 against the appellant from concerned Police
Authorities in Jammu & Kashmir.
(ii) In the wake of adverse police report against the appellant,
HCI, vide Order dated 11.12.2025, refused the appellant's
passport application No. AU1075145265124 dated 01.02.2024
u/s 6(2)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967.
(iii) Since a Clear police report is mandatory for issuance of
passport, the action of HCI in refusing the appellant's passport
application u/s 6(2)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967 is in order.
(iv) Appeal is not allowed.”
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 4 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
the refusal order dated 11.12.2025 does not disclose any material,
particulars or reasons demonstrating how the requirements of Section
6(2)(b) of the Passports Act are satisfied. He contends that the order
merely relies upon the adverse Police Verification Report, which has
never been furnished to the petitioner, and does not disclose any
material linking him to any activity prejudicial to the sovereignty and
integrity of India. According to him, reliance on undisclosed and
unsubstantiated material renders the refusal order ex facie unreasoned
and mechanical. It is further argued that the Passport Authority has
failed to discharge its statutory obligations under Sections 5(2) and
6(2) of the Passports Act, as it has neither applied its mind to the
petitioner‟s application nor undertaken the requisite inquiry or
recorded adequate reasons for its refusal. The learned counsel points
out that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents or pending
proceedings and has never suffered any disqualification or
impounding of his passport under the Passports Act. He also refers to
the fact that the petitioner was issued a valid passport on 13.03.2014
and a Police Clearance Certificate on 05.01.2024, shortly before the
present application. The learned counsel submits that the statutory
appeal dated 09.01.2026 under Section 11 of the Passports Act has
also been decided in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed
under Section 11(5) of the Passports Act read with Rule 16 of the
Passports Rules, 1980. He contends that no opportunity of hearing,
either personally or through counsel, was afforded to the petitioner
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 5 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
before the appeal was rejected, despite the proviso to Section 11(5)
mandating that an appeal shall not be decided without affording such
opportunity. The same, according to him, constitutes a violation of
the principles of natural justice. It is further argued that the impugned
order dated 10.03.2026 suffers from non-application of mind, as it
merely reiterates the refusal order and the existence of the adverse
Police Verification Report, without independently examining the
material or recording reasons for affirming the refusal. The learned
counsel submits that continued non-disclosure of the adverse report,
coupled with the denial of an opportunity of hearing, vitiates the
appellate process and renders the statutory remedy illusory. The
learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the impugned
order is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
He contends that the right to travel abroad and to hold a passport
constitutes an integral facet of personal liberty and that any restriction
thereon must satisfy the requirements of fairness and non-
arbitrariness. He further submits that the continued denial of a valid
passport has caused grave and continuing prejudice to the petitioner,
affecting his academic progress, professional opportunities, financial
stability and legal status abroad. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further argues that the conduct of the respondents is also
contrary to the specific directions issued by this Court vide order
dated 09.02.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 14017/2025, whereby the
respondents were directed to “dispose of the petitioner‟s pending
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 6 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
appeal by passing a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner with due expedition not beyond the four
weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed today”. He,
therefore, seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 10.03.2026
affirming the refusal order dated 11.12.2025, along with
consequential directions to the respondents to act in accordance with
law.
6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1
and 2. The learned CGSC appearing for the respondents submits that,
in the present case, the Police Verification Report was received by
HCI, Canberra on 26.06.2024 and was marked „Not Recommended‟
on grounds relating to the sovereignty and integrity of India and the
security of India. In this regard, he draws the attention of this Court
to paragraphs 4 to 6 of the refusal order dated 11.12.2025 passed by
HCI, Canberra. The learned CGSC further submits that under Section
5 of the Passports Act, the Passport Authority is required to make
such inquiry as it considers necessary for examining an application
for issuance of a passport and, upon such inquiry, to refuse the
application where the case falls within the grounds specified under
Section 6. He particularly refers to Section 5(2)(c) and 6(2)(b) of the
Passports Act, which reads as under:
“ 5 . Applications for passports, travel documents, etc, and
orders thereon .—
(1) x x x x x x
(2) On receipt of an application under this section, the passport
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 7 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
authority, after making such inquiry, if any, as it may consider
necessary shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, by
order in writing —
(a) x x x x x x
(b) x x x x x x
(c) refuse to issue the passport.”
6 . Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc. —
(1) x x x x x x
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport
authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for
visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2)
of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and
on no other ground, namely:—
(a) x x x x x x
(b) sovereignty and integrity of India…”
7. It is submitted that, pursuant to the statutory inquiry, the
Passport Authority sought verification from the concerned Police
Authorities in Jammu & Kashmir, who, upon conducting the requisite
verification, submitted an adverse report marking the petitioner‟s
application as „Not Recommended‟. The learned CGSC points out
that, in response to the specific query in Part B of the Police
Verification Report as to whether the applicant had indulged or was
likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and
integrity of India, security of India, friendly relations with any
foreign country or the interests of the general public, the answer was
marked „Yes‟. He contends that, in view of the said report, the
petitioner‟s application was rightly refused under Section 6(2)(b) of
the Passports Act. The learned CGSC further contends that the
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 8 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
petitioner had thereafter preferred a statutory appeal under Section 11
of the Passports Act before the Chief Passport Officer and that the
appellate authority had examined the petitioner‟s submissions as well
as the material placed by the Passport Authority, including the Police
Verification Report and the relevant provisions of the Passports Act,
and, upon consideration of the same, it had upheld the refusal order.
It is, therefore, argued that the impugned order does not suffer from
any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
8. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both
the parties, and has perused the material available on record.
9. At the outset, it is apposite to note that during the course of
arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was asked
as to why the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which has
prepared the Police Verification Report, had not been impleaded as a
party. He however stated that he did not consider such impleadment
necessary, as, according to him, the inquiry contemplated under
Section 5(2) of the Passports Act is required to be undertaken
independently by the Passport Authority, which cannot rely solely
upon the Police Verification Report. He also contended that the fact
that the Police Verification Report and the underlying verification
have originated from the State of Jammu and Kashmir does not oust
the jurisdiction of this Court to examine the impugned orders passed
by the Passport Authorities.
10. Be that as it may, and without going into the issue of non-
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 9 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
joinder of necessary parties at this stage, and having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, this Court finds that under Section 5(2) of the
Passports Act, the Passport Authority is required to make such
inquiry as it may consider necessary before deciding an application
for issuance or renewal of a passport. The inquiry contemplated
under the provision cannot, however, be understood as one which
excludes the Police Verification Report obtained from the concerned
police authorities. On the contrary, under the scheme of the Passports
Act and the applicable rules, police verification constitutes an
important part of the inquiry undertaken by the Passport Authority,
particularly for ascertaining the character and antecedents of an
applicant and examining whether any of the grounds contemplated
under Section 6 are attracted.
11. Section 6(2) of the Passports Act further provides that a
passport shall be refused where the grounds mentioned in the said
provision are satisfied, including where the issuance of such passport
would not be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India,
the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign
country or the interests of the general public. In this statutory
framework, the Police Verification Report cannot be treated as not
relevant to the decision-making process of the Passport Authority.
The police authorities, being responsible for maintaining records and
conducting verification within their jurisdiction, are ordinarily the
appropriate authority to ascertain the antecedents and other relevant
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 10 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
particulars of an applicant residing or having resided in a particular
area.
12. Therefore, while the Passport Authority is required to
independently apply its mind to the application and the material
available before it, such independent consideration cannot imply that
the Passport Authority is required to disregard or undertake afresh the
factual verification carried out by the concerned police authorities.
The Police Verification Report is a relevant and material component
of the inquiry contemplated under Section 5 of the Passports Act and,
where the same contains an adverse finding on matters falling within
Section 6(2), the Passport Authority is entitled to take such report
into consideration while determining whether the passport ought to
be issued or renewed.
13. This Court is also of the opinion that the Passport Authority, in
the course of such inquiry, would ordinarily have no independent
mechanism to undertake the kind of police verification or verification
of antecedents which is carried out by the concerned police
authorities. The Passport Authority is, therefore, entitled to take into
consideration the Police Verification Report while forming its
opinion on an application for issuance or renewal of a passport. Thus,
the mere fact that the Passport Authority has relied upon an adverse
Police Verification Report cannot, by itself, be a ground to fault the
decision-making process. At the same time, such reliance has to be in
accordance with the statutory procedure and the principles of natural
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 11 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
justice governing the decision.
14. This Court also finds substance in the submission of the
learned CGSC that Sections 5 and 6 of the Passports Act use the
expression „shall‟ in prescribing the manner in which the Passport
Authority is to deal with an application where the statutory
conditions for refusal are attracted. As noted above, in particular,
Section 6(2) sets out circumstances in which a passport is required to
be refused, including where its issuance would not be in the interests
of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India,
friendly relations of India with any foreign country or the interests of
the general public. Therefore, once the competent authority, upon
consideration of the relevant material, arrives at a conclusion that any
of the grounds contemplated under Section 6(2) is attracted, the
Passport Authority cannot disregard the statutory mandate merely on
the ground that the applicant seeks issuance or renewal of the
passport.
15. However, the statutory mandate to refuse a passport where the
conditions under Section 6(2) are attracted does not dispense with the
procedural safeguards prescribed under the Passports Act and the
Passports Rules. In this regard, Rule 16 of the Passports Rules, 1980
is of significance, as it contemplates an opportunity of hearing to the
applicant before the final decision is taken in an appeal. The said
Rule reads as under:
“ 16 . Procedure to be followed by appellate authority — On
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 12 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
receipt of an appeal, the appellate authority may call for the
records of the case from the authority which passed the order
appealed against and after giving the appellant a reasonable
opportunity of representing his case, pass final order.
16. The requirement of hearing becomes particularly relevant in a
case such as the present, where the adverse Police Verification
Report constitutes the principal basis for refusal and the petitioner
disputes the material and circumstances underlying such report. In
this regard, it is also pertinent to take note of the order dated
09.02.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14017/2025 ,
whereby the respondents were specifically directed to dispose of the
petitioner‟s pending appeal by passing a reasoned order after
affording him an opportunity of hearing.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that the petitioner‟s statutory appeal requires fresh consideration by
the appellate authority. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to
the appellate authority for deciding the petitioner‟s appeal afresh,
after affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing in terms of
Rule 16 of the Passports Rules. Since the petitioner is presently
residing abroad, such opportunity of hearing may be afforded to him
through video-conferencing. The appellate authority shall thereafter
pass a fresh order in accordance with law, within a period of 10 (ten)
weeks from date.
18. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits or otherwise of the adverse Police Verification Report, and
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 13 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36
all such issues are left open for consideration by the appellate
authority.
19. The petition is disposed of in above terms, alongwith pending
applications.
20. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026/zp/A
W.P.(C) 5299/2026 Page 14 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:29:36