The Court clarified that under the Passport Act, 1967, the Passport Authority is permitted to conduct an inquiry before issuing a passport, which may include seeking a police verification report to assess the antecedents of the applicant. The purpose of this inquiry is to assist the Passport Authority in determining whether to issue or deny the passport based on the specific circumstances of each case.

 

However, the Court emphasized that the final decision rests solely with the Passport Authority, which may consider the inquiry report but is not bound by it.

 

“Merely because the inquiry report received is adverse, the Passport Authority cannot differ from their own decision on issuance of Passport, nor they can refuse the same without applying mind to the facts stated in the report,” it said.

 

The Court was hearing the plea of a 34-year-old woman challenging the rejection of her passport renewal application. The woman had previously held a passport from 2012 to 2022. The Centre opposed the plea, citing an adverse police verification report that raised doubts about her nationality.

However, the Court granted relief to the woman after noting that there was no evidence on record to suggest she was not an Indian citizen. It observed that the woman was born in Tihar Jail in 1990, completed her schooling under the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), and had been issued a Permanent Account Number (PAN) Card by the Income Tax Department.

Additionally, she held an Aadhaar card, voter card, and driving license. The Court also noted that both her husband and father were permanent residents of India, further affirming her Indian citizenship by birth.

In its ruling, the Court rejected the claim made in the police report suggesting she was of Nepali origin.

“Petitioner was admittedly born in India and her domicile of origin is India. The domicile of origin is a concept of law and clings to a person until he/she abandon it by acquiring a new domicile of choice. The petitioner was born in India and her domicile of origin is India and when her father and husband are permanent citizens of India, then the objection raised by the respondents remarked as “the photo identical nationality doubtful (Nepali)” is unsustainable.”

The Court further noted that if the woman were not an Indian national, she would not have been issued a passport in 2012. Therefore, the Court set aside the decision to reject her passport renewal application and directed the authorities to process her application within eight weeks.

However, the Court also specified that the authorities could take appropriate action against her in accordance with the law and due procedure if any adverse findings arise during the review.