Adverse police verification report valid ground for denial of passport issuance or renewal: Delhi HC

The court said the Passport Authority ordinarily has no independent mechanism to conduct verification and is therefore entitled to consider a PVR.

The Delhi High Court has held that an adverse police verification report (PVR) can constitute a valid ground to deny issuance or renewal of a passport, observing that the Passport Authority is entitled to rely on such a report while considering an application.

“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,” the court said. (Representative Image/Unsplash)

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in a September 5 judgment, said the Passport Authority must independently apply its mind to a passport application and the material before it, but cannot disregard or independently re-examine the factual verification conducted by police authorities.

The court said the Passport Authority ordinarily has no independent mechanism to conduct the kind of verification of antecedents undertaken by police and is therefore entitled to consider a PVR while deciding whether to issue or renew a passport.

“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,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea by an Indian national studying at the Australian National University in Canberra, challenging an order of the Office of the Joint Secretary (PSP) and Chief Passport Officer rejecting his passport renewal application.

The man said he had submitted a complete application on February 1, 2024, but it remained pending for nearly 18 months without reasons being disclosed or a decision communicated. In December 2025, the High Commission of India (HCI) in Canberra rejected his application, citing an adverse PVR. His appeal before the Chief Passport Officer was rejected on March 10, following which he approached the high court.

The petitioner argued that the refusal order did not disclose material showing how the requirements of Section 6(2)(b) of the Passports Act, which sets out grounds for refusal, were met. He said the order merely relied on an adverse PVR that had not been supplied to him and contained no material linking him to any activity prejudicial to India’s sovereignty and integrity.

He also argued that the appellate authority had failed to independently apply its mind and that non-disclosure of the report and denial of an opportunity of hearing had rendered the statutory appeal ineffective.

The Centre, however, submitted that the PVR received by the HCI, Canberra, on June 26, 2024, was marked “Not Recommended” on grounds concerning India’s sovereignty and integrity and its security. It said the Passport Authority, under Section 5 of the Passports Act, was required to conduct an inquiry while considering an application and could refuse it on the basis of that inquiry.

While upholding the relevance of the adverse PVR, the high court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, noting that the authority had rejected the application without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

The court said the requirement of a hearing assumed particular significance because the adverse PVR was the primary basis for rejection and the petitioner disputed the material and circumstances underlying it.