Srinagar, Oct. 9, KDC: Holding that vague security apprehensions stemming from a 1997 case involving an applicant’s father cannot be used to penalize a student born years later, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ordered the revival of a Kashmiri student’s impounded passport to enable her to complete her ongoing MBBS degree at Tehran University of Medical Sciences in Iran.
Disposing of a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal modified an earlier order passed by a Single Judge and directed the authorities to restore Ibra Khan’s passport for the remaining period required to complete her medical course.
The appellant, enrolled at the Kish Campus of Tehran University of Medical Sciences—an institution recognised by the National Medical Commission (NMC)—had already completed two years of her undergraduate medical course using a valid passport. Her academic career was abruptly interrupted after passport authorities issued show-cause notices in March and April 2026, culminating in an order dated May 4, 2026, impounding her passport under Section 10(3)(g) of the Passports Act, 1967.
Appearing for the student, advocates Salih Pirzada and Syed Ainain Qadri submitted that the appellant had completed half of her MBBS course with valid official permissions.
The counsel argued that withdrawing her travel facility at this stage would cause irreparable harm to her education and future, and sought the limited revival of her passport strictly to enable her to complete the remaining duration of the course.
Following the court’s directions, the respondent authorities placed an adverse verification report before the Bench in a sealed cover. The report raised concerns regarding the appellant’s father in connection with a criminal case registered in 1997 and expressed apprehensions that the student might join anti-India elements abroad, thereby prejudicing the security and sovereignty of the country.
Scrutinising the record, the Division Bench noted the apparent disconnect between the historical case against the father and the appellant’s age, observing:
“Upon such submissions, a report was called from the respondent-State in a sealed cover. The report has been placed before this Court which suggests certain aspersions against the appellant’s father in relation to a case registered in the year 1997. The report also apprehends that the appellant may join anti-India forces, thereby jeopardizing the security and sovereignty of the country.”
“Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, has not been able to pinpoint the reasons for such apprehension, because the case pertains to the year 1997, whereas the appellant herself was born in the year 2005,” the Court said.
“This Court has the highest respect and concern towards the security of the country and, thus, in a very limited intervention and also keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the appellant has completed half of her MBBS course and is required to complete the remaining half, we dispose of the present appeal by directing that the passport of the appellant shall be revived for the remaining period required for completion of her MBBS course,” the Court held.
Emphasising the potential prejudice to the student’s future if clearance were denied, the Bench observed:
“We make it clear that the present order is being passed in the peculiar circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the fact that the appellant has already completed half of her MBBS course under the permission granted by the respondents. Depriving her of the opportunity to complete the remaining course would jeopardize her career to complete her MBBS course.”
The Court clarified that if any adverse material existed beyond what had been furnished in the sealed-cover report, the respondents would remain free to conduct a fresh security audit before restoring the passport.
The Bench also granted the authorities the liberty to impose necessary regulatory conditions based on an expert assessment, which the student would be required to comply with before the passport is formally handed over.
The Court further clarified that the relief had been tailored strictly to the unique facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent.
Advocates Salih Pirzada and Syed Ainain Qadri appeared for the appellant. Senior Additional Advocate General (AAG) Mohsin Qadri, assisted by counsel Maha Majeed, represented the Union Territory administration, while Deputy Solicitor General of India T. M. Shamsi, along with Central Government Standing Counsel Faizan Ahmad Ganai, represented the Union of India. (KDC)
