Judgment :- THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 2. The petitioner was earlier residing at Madurai. The petitioner obtained a passport from the Regional Passport Officer, Trichy. The validity of the passport expired on 18 April, 2011. Since the petitioner was residing within the jurisdiction of the Passport Officer, Madurai, she submitted an application for renewal. The Passport Officer renewed the passport and it was sent to her residential address. The postal authorities returned the passport with an endorsement "left". This made the Passport Officer to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner to explain as to why the passport was returned 'undelivered'. The petitioner, in her reply to the show cause notice, informed the Passport Officer that she applied for passport by showing her earlier address at No.12, Rajendra 2nd Street, Karimedu, Madurai. Subsequently, she changed her address to Door No.22/4B, Nainar Oorani Street, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. The Passport Officer forwarded the papers to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, for verification. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai, submitted his enquiry report on 26 July, 2011 stating that the son of the petitioner by name Mohammed Riyaz was arrested by French Police on account of his connection with SIMI. The Commissioner of Police, in his report, submitted that the enquiry is now in progress and as such, passport should not be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition before this Court and pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Passport Officer considered the matter afresh with notice to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai. The Superintendent of Police, in his report dated 09 August, 2012, informed the Passport Officer that in case the petitioner is given a passport, she would proceed to France through any other third country to meet her son and extend her support to her son. This made the Passport Officer to reject the application for passport. According to the petitioner, her application for passport to meet her daughter at Dubai, cannot be rejected on the ground that her son is detained in France. The order passed by the Passport Officer is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai filed a detailed counter-affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The order passed by the Passport Officer is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai filed a detailed counter-affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. According to the Superintendent of Police, the son of the petitioner is an associate of SIMI and he indulged in recruiting people and sending them to Pakistan for military training. The Superintendent of Police apprehends that in case the petitioner is given passport, she would meet her son at France and the same would cause serious threat to the nation. 4. The Passport Officer, in his counter-affidavit, submitted that the Superintendent of Police, in his report, opposed the prayer for issuance of passport to the petitioner and that was the reason for passing the impugned order. 5. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, I have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has any intention to visit France to see her son. The learned counsel, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner wanted only to visit her daughter at Dubai and she will not travel to France. Therefore, I directed the petitioner to file an undertaking affidavit that in case passport is issued to her, she will not visit France to see her son. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an undertaking affidavit dated 20 March, 2013, making it clear that she has no intention of visiting France to see her son. FACTUAL ANALYSIS: 6. The petitioner was earlier issued with a passport. Subsequently, her passport was renewed by the Regional Passport Officer, Madurai. The passport was sent to the residential address of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not found, the postal authorities returned the passport. This made the Passport Officer to issue a notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the application was rejected on the basis of the adverse report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai. 7. The core question is whether the detention of the son of the petitioner in France, branding him as a SIMI would operate as a bar to her to obtain a passport. 8. The petitioner wanted a passport to visit her daughter at Dubai. According to the petitioner, her son deserted the family. Her children and grandchildren are in Dubai. Her intention is only to visit them at Dubai. 8. The petitioner wanted a passport to visit her daughter at Dubai. According to the petitioner, her son deserted the family. Her children and grandchildren are in Dubai. Her intention is only to visit them at Dubai. The detention of the son of the petitioner was taken as the reason to deny her passport. 9. The fact that the petitioner's son is under detention in France cannot be a valid reason to deny passport to her. The police have no case that the petitioner was also involved in unlawful activities and in case she is given passport, she would visit Pakistan or other alien country. The passport was originally renewed and it was detained only on account of the change of address of the petitioner. 10. The police should verify as to whether the petitioner has got any connection with the illegal activities undertaken by her son. In case the petitioner was involved in any such illegal activities, the police would be justified in submitting a report before the Passport Officer not to issue passport to her. However, that is not the case here. The report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai or the counter-affidavit filed by him does not point out any finger against the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner is the unfortunate mother of a SIMI activist cannot be a reason to deny her passport. The second respondent was not justified in rejecting the application for passport on the ground that the petitioner is the mother of a member of terrorist organisation. THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE: 11. India is a secular country. We live here in complete religious harmony. The Constitution of India provides for religious tolerance. Article 51-A(e) under Part IV-A of the Constitution cast a fundamental duty on every citizen of India to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India, transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities. 12. Merely because a person or a section of a particular community indulged in acts of violence or extremism, it cannot be concluded that the other members of the said community are also the followers of such violent activities. It is not correct to paint everybody with the same brush. The attempt should be to bring all such people to the mainstream. There should be a sea change in our mind set. 13. It is not correct to paint everybody with the same brush. The attempt should be to bring all such people to the mainstream. There should be a sea change in our mind set. 13. In the result, the impugned order dated 13 August, 2012 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Regional Passport Officer, Madurai, for fresh consideration. RELIEF: 14. The petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh application for passport indicating her current residential address. She should also produce proof regarding her identity and documents to show that she is residing in the address shown in her application for passport. In case any such application is made, the Passport Officer should forward the same to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, so as to enable him, to submit a report with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in any of the illegal activities. In case there is no adverse report against the petitioner other than her position as the mother of a member of SIMI, necessarily, the application should be considered by the Passport Officer, on merits and in accordance with law. In any case, the application for passport should be disposed of by the Regional Passport Officer, Madurai, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of application. 15. The Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.