The Court directed the respondents to produce the entire file relating to the petitioner's passport application and ordered the Regional Passport Officer, Srinagar, to remain present in person before the Court to answer its queries, observing that the writ petition could possibly be disposed of without adjudication on merits.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Andrabi, who approached the Court aggrieved by non-issuance of an Indian passport despite completion of formalities from his end. The petition challenged the communication issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Srinagar, requiring him to submit an explanation along with supporting documents within thirty days, failing which his passport file was liable to be closed without further notice.

A Single Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,

“...A citizen of India is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty in accordance with law and, therefore, cannot reasonably be expected to furnish an effective explanation w.r.t. his credentials and antecedents without being apprised of the material sought to be relied upon against him.”

Andrabi approached the High Court contending that after applying for an Indian passport and completing the required formalities, the passport had not been issued. His grievance was that he was asked by the Regional Passport Officer, Srinagar, to explain his position with respect to certain adverse police verification reports. However, according to him, he was not provided the contents of those reports and was consequently unable to understand the material requiring an explanation from him.

The communication issued by the Regional Passport Officer required him to submit an explanation along with relevant supporting documents within thirty days, failing which his passport application file was liable to be closed without further notice.

The Court examined whether the opportunity granted to the petitioner to explain his position satisfied the requirements of a fair administrative process. The Court noted that the petitioner was required to respond to adverse police verification reports but was not made aware of the contents of those reports. It observed that without knowledge of the material relied upon, an effective explanation could not reasonably be expected from the petitioner.

The Court further observed that the communication issued by the Regional Passport Officer did not reserve any opportunity for disclosure of the contents of the adverse reports when the petitioner attended the office within the stipulated period. The Court stated that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to respond to the material sought to be relied upon against him.

The Court held that the impugned communication prima facie did not meet the essence of a fair administrative course of action. It observed,

“The impugned communication, therefore, prima facie fails to meet the very essence of a fair administrative course of action or decision under the rule of law which governs this country. The rule of law is, in other words, the rule of reason, which this Court does not prima facie find reflected in the impugned communication.”

During the hearing, the respondents submitted that if the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Regional Passport Officer for submission of explanation after disclosure of information, the passport file might already have been closed and may not be available for revival.

The Court observed that such a situation could not prevent consideration of the petitioner's application in accordance with law. It noted that even if the writ petition was ultimately allowed on merits, the same application would necessarily have to be revived and considered afresh. The Court thereafter directed the respondents to come forward with instructions and specifically directed the DSGI to bring the entire file relating to the petitioner's passport application.

The Regional Passport Officer, Srinagar, was also directed to remain personally present before the Court to answer queries, as the Court found a possibility of disposal of the writ petition without adjudication on merits. The matter was listed on 21.08.2026 for further consideration.

Case Title: Naeem Akhter Andrabi v. Union of India & Ors.

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Altaf Haqani; Advocate Muneeba

Respondents: DSGI T. M. Shamsi; Advocate Faizan Ahmad Ganaie; Advocate Bisma Ali

Click here to read/download Judgment