Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr. Rai, learned counsel representating the respondents-Union of India relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harjit Singh and Ors. v. Union of India, 1991(1) C.L.J. (C.Cr. & Rev.) 158. The plea of Union of India in opposing grant of passport on the precise ground as specified in the present case was upheld primarily on the basis of provisions of Sections 11 and 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 which deals with grounds on which passport can be refused was not discussed at all. This Court is of the view that petitioner could be refused passport only on the grounds enumerated in Section 6 of the Passport Act and passport could not be refused only if the adoption of the petitioner was not in accordance with Sections 11 and 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. However, inasmuch as, there is a direct Division Bench judgment, which has taken a view in tune with the defence projected by Union of India, which, in my opinion with utmost respect does not appear to be correct, this matter needs to be decided by a Larger Bench. The Court at one stage had thought to distinguish the judgment in Harjit Singh's case on the basis that Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 was not discussed at all but it would not be appropriate to do so in view of the fact that the question involved in the present case is absolutely identical to the one involved in case of Harjit Singh (supra).

5. Mr. M.S. Guglani, learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel of Union of India representing Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand contended as follows:-

Reasons given for refusal to grant Passport are valid, in view of the Division Bench judgment of our own High Court in Harjit Singh and Ors. v. Union of India, 1999(1) Current Law Journal (C.Cr. & Rev.), 158 no interference is required; in the public interest, as mentioned in Section 6(2)(i), there was justification for not granting the passport, in many cases adoption deeds have been found to be fake by the Passport authorities justifying refusal to grant Passport in such cases. The Government will have to bear costs to the petitioner from Italy to India if he is not kept by his Uncle or Aunt in Italy.

6. In regard to the apprehension expressed by Mr. M.S. Guglani, the learned counsel for the Petitioner took up a stand that any apprehension in regard to who will bear the responsibility of the petitioner in Italy is wholly unfounded inasmuch as the Aunt and Uncle of the Petitioner have already shown their preparedness in this regard.

7. The short question for our consideration is what is true scope of Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967? and whether the Respondent No. 2 in particular was justified in refusing Passport to the Petitioner?

8. Section 6 of the Act reads as follows:-

"6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.-

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country under Clause (b) or Clause (c) of sub Section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:-

(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;