Judicial precedents have played a vital role in striking a balance between individual rights and governmental interests.
Anjinesh Anjay Shukla
High Court Advocate Chhattisgarh
A passport serves as an essential travel document issued by a country’s government, authorizing its holder to travel internationally and return to the home country. In India, the regulation of passport issuance, suspension, and revocation falls under the Passports Act of 1967.
Legal Framework: Section 14 of the Passports Act, 1967, empowers designated officials such as customs officers, police officers, or emigration officers of at least sub-inspector rank, to conduct searches and seizures. These officials act under the direction of the Central or State Government through a general or special order and are authorized to seize passports or travel documents from individuals suspected of offences under Section 12. The rules governing searches and seizures as per the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, apply to these operations unless they conflict with the provisions of the Passports Act. In such cases, the Passports Act, being a special law, overrides the BNSS, which serves as general law.
The Passports Act, 1967, is the legislative foundation for issuing and revoking passports in India. Enforced by the Ministry of External Affairs through Passport Seva Kendras (PSKs) and Regional Passport Offices (RPOs), this Act simplifies and regulates the process of obtaining passports and travel documents. Importantly, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution safeguards the right to travel abroad, as interpreted through judicial decisions.
In cases where a court has issued a warrant, summons, or prohibited the holder from leaving India, the passport authority can take action after confirming the court’s orders. Additionally, Section 10(4) allows the holder to voluntarily apply for the revocation of their passport. Section 10(7) provides for revocation in cases where the holder is convicted of an offense under the Act or its rules, with the proviso that such revocation becomes void if the conviction is overturned on appeal. Section 10(8) further enables the appellate court or High Court to order the revocation of a passport during the exercise of their revisionary powers.
Rights and Remedies against the Revocation of Passport: Under Section 10(5) of the Passports Act, it is mandated that before a passport can be revoked, the appropriate authority must grant the passport holder an opportunity to argue against the revocation decision. This requirement is put in place to ensure fairness, with the notable exception being situations where immediate action is deemed essential for national security purposes. Furthermore, individuals possess the right to challenge the revocation of their passports under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, empowering them to seek judicial intervention in the High Court. The judiciary serves as a vital guardian against arbitrary actions taken by the government, ensuring that individuals are not unjustly deprived of their travel documents.
Court Judgments:
In the realm of passport law, significant legal precedents have shaped the understanding of an individual’s rights concerning their passport. Notably, the revocation of a previously issued passport does not prevent the passport holder from applying for a new one. This principle was underscored in the case of Mohd. Irfan Gani v. Union of India (30.09.2011) by the Delhi High Court, which affirmed that such revocation might be a factor in the decision to issue a fresh passport but does not serve as an outright barrier. The legal framework governing the revocation or impounding of passports is strictly outlined under the provisions of the Passports Act, as established in Arockia Jeyabalan v. The Regional Passport Officer (15.09.2014) by the Madras High Court. This case clarified that only the Act itself provides the necessary authority for such actions.
In Pushpal Swarnkar v. State of Chhattisgarh (03.12.2008), the Chhattisgarh High Court determined that a court order requiring the deposit of a passport and visa as a bail condition may lack legal sustainability. The importance of personal liberty in connection to the right to travel abroad was recognized long before the Passports Act was enacted. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam (1967), the Supreme Court affirmed that the right to travel is an essential aspect of personal liberty, laying the groundwork for the protective measures that would later be codified in the Passports Act.
The court’s authority regarding passport revocation in matters of national security was further examined in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), which upheld the government’s right to revoke passports when individual actions pose a potential threat to state security. This ruling highlighted the delicate balance that must be maintained between individual rights and the overarching interests of the state. In subsequent cases like Suresh Nanda v. CBI, the court addressed the unjust withholding of passports. It declared that retaining a passport on the premise of secure custody until trial was unreasonable, emphasizing that possession of a passport is a fundamental right associated with the freedom to travel. Similarly, in Hardik Shah v. Union of India, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that retaining a traveller’s passport without sufficient justification infringes upon their fundamental right to life and personal liberty, as protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Justice Sujoy Paul further articulated that the mere existence of ongoing legal proceedings or the issuance of a red corner notice does not justify the confiscation of an individual’s passport.
Conclusion:
The Passports Act of 1967 provides a detailed structure for the revocation process while incorporating protections against the abuse of authority. Judicial precedents have played a vital role in striking a balance between individual rights and governmental interests. To promote fairness in these proceedings, it is crucial that authorities adhere to the principles of natural justice.
