Introduction:

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a person cannot be denied a passport merely because an old police verification report records his alleged involvement in an FIR, particularly when no charge sheet arising from that case is pending before the concerned court. The ruling came in a writ petition filed by 78-year-old Mohammad Ramzan Wani against the Union of India and other authorities, seeking issuance of a passport despite an adverse police verification report concerning an FIR registered nearly four decades ago.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal considered the petitioner’s grievance after his passport application was not processed on account of adverse remarks contained in a police verification report. The relevant FIR, FIR No. 111/1988, had been registered at Police Station Safa Kadal. Although the police verification report referred to the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the case, the judicial record subsequently obtained by the High Court showed that no charge sheet arising from the FIR was pending before the concerned court.

The issue before the Court was therefore not whether the petitioner had ever been named or implicated in a police case. Rather, the question was whether an old FIR, without any pending charge sheet or criminal proceeding before the competent court, could by itself constitute a lawful basis for preventing the petitioner from obtaining a passport.

The petitioner had initially applied for a passport, but his application was rejected on the basis of the police verification report dated December 26, 2022, which contained adverse remarks concerning his alleged involvement in the 1988 FIR. He subsequently submitted another online application. However, instead of being processed, the application was returned with the endorsement that the police verification report was not clear and that the application was under review at the Regional Passport Office.

Faced with continued uncertainty, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking appropriate directions to the passport authorities. During the proceedings, the Court considered it necessary to ascertain the actual status of the criminal case rather than relying solely on the adverse remarks contained in the police verification report.

By its earlier order dated August 27, 2026, the High Court called for a report from the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The report furnished pursuant to that direction disclosed that no case arising out of FIR No. 111/1988 was pending before the concerned court.

The judicial report consequently became central to the Court’s determination. Once the competent court confirmed that there was no pending charge sheet arising from the FIR, the question arose as to whether the passport authorities could continue to rely upon the police verification report to refuse or indefinitely withhold the passport application.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal answered this question in favour of the petitioner, holding that respondents could not refuse issuance of the passport merely on the basis of the police verification report concerning the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the decades-old FIR, in the absence of any pending charge sheet before the competent court.

The Court, however, did not direct the immediate unconditional issuance of the passport. Instead, it directed the concerned respondents to decide the petitioner’s passport application notwithstanding the adverse police verification report and subject to there being no other legal impediment. The authorities were expected to pass an appropriate order within three months from the date on which a certified copy of the Court’s order was made available to them.

The decision is significant in highlighting the distinction between an allegation recorded in a police verification report and a criminal proceeding actually pending before a competent court. It also demonstrates the importance of judicial scrutiny where administrative authorities rely upon old criminal records to affect a person’s ability to obtain official documents.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, Mohammad Ramzan Wani, was 78 years old when he approached the High Court seeking a direction for issuance of a passport. His grievance arose from the repeated difficulty he faced in having his passport application processed because of an adverse police verification report.

According to the petitioner, he had applied for issuance of a passport, but the application was rejected after the police verification report dated December 26, 2022, recorded adverse remarks concerning his alleged involvement in FIR No. 111/1988. The FIR was approximately 38 years old at the time the issue came before the High Court.

The petitioner subsequently submitted another application online. However, that application was returned with the endorsement that the police verification report was not clear and that the application was under review at the Regional Passport Office.

The petitioner therefore sought judicial intervention. His case was that an old FIR, by itself, could not continue to operate as an indefinite impediment to issuance of a passport when there was no pending criminal proceeding arising from that FIR before the competent court.

The petitioner’s grievance was strengthened by the fact that the relevant judicial record did not show the pendency of any charge sheet arising out of the 1988 FIR. The High Court had specifically called for a report from the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar, to ascertain the actual status of the case. The report confirmed that no case arising out of FIR No. 111/1988 was pending before the concerned court.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Saqib Shabir.

The respondents, including the Union of India and the concerned authorities, were represented by their respective counsel. Ms. Shagfuta Maqbool appeared for the Union respondents, while Mr. Shahbaz Sikander, AAG, represented the concerned State authorities.

The respondents’ position, as reflected in the proceedings, was connected with the adverse police verification report. The passport application had not received a clear police verification because the report referred to the petitioner’s involvement in the 1988 FIR. The Regional Passport Office had consequently kept the application under review rather than processing it in the ordinary course.

The existence of an adverse verification report was therefore the administrative basis for the difficulty faced by the petitioner.

However, the Court’s intervention resulted in an independent verification of the status of the criminal proceedings. Rather than accepting the police report as conclusive, the Court sought a report from the competent judicial authority. This report established that no charge sheet arising from the FIR was pending before the concerned court.

The proceedings consequently required the Court to balance two considerations. On one hand, passport authorities are entitled to examine relevant information and comply with applicable legal requirements before issuing a passport. On the other hand, an administrative authority cannot indefinitely prevent issuance merely because a police report refers to an old FIR when the judicial record establishes that no corresponding charge sheet is pending.

The Court ultimately found that the latter consideration was decisive in the circumstances of the case.

It is important to note that the respondents were not deprived of the opportunity to examine whether there was any other legal impediment to the issuance of the passport. The High Court’s direction was not an automatic declaration that the petitioner was entitled to a passport regardless of all other considerations. Instead, the Court required the authorities to decide his application without treating the 1988 FIR, in the circumstances established before the Court, as by itself sufficient to refuse the passport.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Rajnesh Oswal proceeded to examine the actual status of the criminal case rather than treating the police verification report as determinative.

The High Court had earlier, by order dated August 27, 2026, directed that a report be obtained from the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The purpose of obtaining this report was to determine whether any case arising from FIR No. 111/1988 was actually pending before the competent court.

The report received from the judicial authority disclosed that no case arising out of the FIR registered at Police Station Safa Kadal was pending before the concerned court.

This finding materially altered the position reflected in the police verification report. While the police report recorded the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the old FIR, there was no corresponding pending charge sheet before the competent court.

The Court therefore held that the passport authorities could not refuse issuance merely on the strength of the police verification report.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that, in view of the report submitted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, it was evident that no charge sheet arising out of FIR No. 111/1988 was pending before the concerned court. In those circumstances, the Court held that respondents could not refuse to issue the passport merely on the basis of the verification report referring to the petitioner’s involvement in the FIR.

The reasoning is significant because it distinguishes between the existence of an FIR and the pendency of a criminal case before a court. Registration of an FIR is an investigative step. It records information concerning an alleged offence and sets the criminal law process in motion. But an FIR by itself does not establish guilt, nor does its mere existence necessarily mean that a criminal prosecution is pending before a court.

In the present case, the FIR was registered in 1988, nearly four decades before the High Court proceedings. The Court was therefore confronted with a situation where an extremely old police record continued to affect the petitioner’s administrative application, even though the judicial authority confirmed that no charge sheet arising from that FIR was pending.

The Court’s approach prevented the police verification report from being treated as an automatic and permanent bar to the petitioner’s passport application.

At the same time, the judgment does not establish that every person whose name appears in an FIR must automatically be issued a passport. The Court’s direction was based on the particular circumstances before it, especially the judicial report establishing the absence of a pending charge sheet and the lack of any other identified legal impediment.

This distinction is important. Passport authorities remain entitled to examine an application in accordance with the governing law and relevant rules. What the Court rejected was the proposition that the petitioner could be denied a passport solely because an old police verification report referred to his alleged involvement in an FIR when no charge sheet arising from that FIR was pending before the competent court.

The Court therefore disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned respondents to decide the petitioner’s passport application notwithstanding the police verification report relating to the 1988 FIR.

The direction was also subject to the qualification that there should be no other legal impediment to issuance of the passport. Thus, the High Court did not substitute itself for the passport authority or direct the authorities to ignore all statutory requirements. Instead, it required them to reconsider and decide the application lawfully, without treating the old FIR as an independent ground for refusal in the circumstances established before the Court.

The Court further expressed confidence that the concerned respondents would pass appropriate orders within three months from the date on which a certified copy of the order was made available to them.

The decision consequently provides relief to the petitioner without converting the writ proceedings into an adjudication of the underlying 1988 criminal allegation. The High Court did not pronounce upon the merits of the FIR, nor did it make a finding concerning the petitioner’s guilt or innocence. Its focus remained on whether the existence of the old FIR, unsupported by any pending charge sheet, could continue to prevent the administrative processing of his passport application.

The judgment also underscores the importance of accurate and current information in administrative decision-making. A police verification report may contain historical information, but that information cannot necessarily be treated as conclusive without examining the present legal status of the underlying criminal proceedings.

In the present case, the High Court took the additional step of seeking information directly from the competent judicial authority. Once that report confirmed that no charge sheet arising from the FIR was pending, the Court found that the adverse verification report could not, by itself, justify refusal of the passport.

The outcome therefore strikes a balance between the authority of passport officials to conduct verification and the need to ensure that an individual is not indefinitely burdened by an old criminal allegation that is not reflected in any pending court proceeding.

The Court’s order in Mohammad Ramzan Wani v. Union of India and Others ultimately requires the passport authorities to make a fresh decision on the petitioner’s application. The respondents must consider the application notwithstanding the police verification report concerning FIR No. 111/1988, while remaining free to examine whether any other legal impediment exists.

The ruling is particularly noteworthy because of the age of the petitioner and the extraordinary passage of time since registration of the FIR. A police reference dating back to 1988 had continued to affect a passport application decades later, but the Court’s inquiry into the judicial status of the case revealed that no charge sheet arising from the FIR was pending.

The judgment therefore reinforces a fundamental principle of fair administrative decision-making: an adverse historical entry cannot automatically become a perpetual disability, particularly when the competent court records no pending prosecution arising from the underlying FIR.

By directing the authorities to decide the application within three months, the High Court brought an end to the indefinite administrative uncertainty faced by the petitioner while preserving the respondents’ authority to consider any other lawful impediment. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions.