Passport appeals based on adverse police verification require a reasonable hearing under Rule 16.

The petitioner, an Indian citizen pursuing studies at the Australian National University, applied to the High Commission of India, Canberra, for renewal of his passport on 1 February 2024. The application remained pending for approximately eighteen months.

During earlier writ proceedings, the Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider his request for issuance of a short-validity passport; however, the direction was not complied with. Subsequently, the High Commission refused the application under Section 6(2)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, relying on an adverse Police Verification Report dated 26 June 2024, which marked the petitioner “Not Recommended” on grounds relating to the sovereignty and integrity and security of India.

The petitioner’s statutory appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act was dismissed by the Chief Passport Officer on 10 March 2026, principally on the ground that a clear police report was mandatory for issuance of a passport.

The petitioner challenged both orders, contending that the adverse report had not been disclosed, that the refusal and appellate orders were unreasoned, and that no opportunity of hearing had been granted despite Section 11(5) and Rule 16 of the Passports Rules, 1980.

Whether the Passport Authority could rely upon the adverse Police Verification Report while deciding the petitioner’s passport-renewal application under Sections 5 and 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.

Whether the refusal order under Section 6(2)(b) was legally sustainable where it relied on the adverse Police Verification Report without disclosing adequate particulars or reasons to the petitioner.

Whether the appellate order was vitiated by failure to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing as required by Section 11(5) of the Passports Act and Rule 16 of the Passports Rules, 1980.

What consequential relief should be granted in view of the violation of the prescribed appellate procedure and the earlier direction of the Court to pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner.

The Court applied Section 5(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, under which the Passport Authority must make such inquiry as it considers necessary before deciding an application; such inquiry may legitimately include police verification regarding the applicant’s character and antecedents.

Section 6(2) requires refusal of a passport where a statutory ground, including considerations concerning the sovereignty and integrity or security of India, is established on the basis of relevant material.

However, this statutory obligation does not exclude procedural fairness or natural justice. Section 11(5) of the Passports Act and Rule 16 of the Passports Rules, 1980 require the appellate authority to afford the appellant a reasonable opportunity to represent his case before deciding the appeal.

The Passport Authority must independently apply its mind to the material, although it is entitled to rely on a police report and is not required to duplicate the police investigation.

The Court held that reliance on an adverse Police Verification Report was not, by itself, illegal. Police verification is a material component of the inquiry contemplated under Section 5, and the Passport Authority may consider the report while determining whether a ground under Section 6(2) is attracted.

Nevertheless, the statutory power to refuse a passport must be exercised in accordance with the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice.

Since the adverse report constituted the principal basis for refusal and the petitioner disputed the material underlying it, the appellate authority was required to provide him a reasonable opportunity to represent his case under Rule 16.

The failure to afford any hearing was particularly material because the Court had earlier directed the respondents to decide the appeal by a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner.

The appellate order merely affirmed the refusal by referring to the existence of the adverse report and the supposed mandatory requirement of a clear police report, without demonstrating that the petitioner had been heard in accordance with law.

It held that the statutory appeal required fresh consideration because the petitioner had not been afforded the reasonable opportunity of hearing mandated by Rule 16 of the Passports Rules, 1980.

The appellate order dated 10 March 2026 was consequently not sustained, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the petitioner.

Since the petitioner resided abroad, the hearing could be conducted through video-conferencing. A fresh order was directed to be passed in accordance with law within ten weeks.