Officials Pulled Up After Mehbooba Mufti’s Mother Denied Passport

Justice MA Chowdhary said that there appears to be no ground for refusing Gulshan Nazir, Mehbooba Mufti’s mother request for issuing or renewal of a passport

Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court criticised the government for refusing PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti’s mother a passport, stating that the passport officer could not “act as mouthpiece” for the CID.

During the hearing of Mehbooba Mufti’s mother Gulshan Nazir’s petition, Justice M. A. Chowdhary stated that it appears there is no reason to deny her request for the issuance or renewal of a passport.

“Even, there is not an iota of allegation against the petitioner that may point out to any security concerns. The police verification report formulated by CID-CIK cannot override the statutory provisions of Section 6 of the Passport Act 1967,” the judge said in an order pronounced on Saturday.

The court stated the opposite as well, stating that nothing negative had been noted against the petitioner with regard to any security concerns in the report cited by the respondents—the passport officer and the appellant authority.

“The only aspect with regard to the petitioner is the reference of investigation by two agencies Enforcement Directorate and the CID-CIK with regard to some of the transactions regarding some bank accounts maintained by the petitioner either separately or jointly with Ms. Mehbooba Mufti,” it said.

Also, Read: Mumbai: Police Nabs Man Who Threatened To Blow Up Bandra Church

The passport official, only based on the Jammu and Kashmir Crime Investigation Department’s (CID) report that suggests that passports not be granted, under the provisions of the Passport Act, cannot “shut his eyes and to act on that”, the court said.

Taking a strong stance against authorities, it stated that the decision made by both the passport officer and the appellant authority was improper because the petitioner’s requested passport had not been issued because the CID had not recommended that it be cleared for security- “is misplaced on account of security”.

The court said the refusal by the passport officer was “non-application of mind”.

“At least, the passport officer should have, in the background of the facts and circumstances, if required, asked the police and the CID agency as to whether there is anything adverse against the petitioner,” the court said.

“In such a situation without going into the police verification report, refusal on part of the passport officer simply be termed as non-application of mind,” it said.