Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. Section 6 of the Act enumerates the grounds on which the WPC Nos.29873/2018 & passport authority can partially or totally refuse to issue the passport. The provision reads:

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;
(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country;
(d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such a country is not in the public interest. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:--

(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.

(Italics supplied)

19. Section 6 (1) speaks of the passport authority's refusal to endorse on an existing travel document under clause ( b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5. On the other hand, sub-section (2) deals with the authority's refusal to issue the passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause ( c) of sub- section (2) of Section 5. That is, sub-section (2) concerns issuing the passport, rather than endorsing on the passport. It contains more grounds of refusal than sub-section (1). Yet clause (b) in subsection (1) and clause (c) in subsection (2) are common: that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India. Indeed, the Customs Department has invoked this clause, and the RPO followed suit.

6 AIR 1967 SC 1836 WPC Nos.29873/2018 &

37. Given the intricacy of the issue, I have asked Ms. Neenu Nair, an industrious young advocate, to be the informal amicus of the Court. She has agreed. On research, she has informed the Court that she has not come across any judicial interpretation--precedentially or otherwise--holding that security of the country under either Section 6 or 10 of the Act would include "economic security". She has submitted that the Passports Act 1967 was enacted in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's decision in Satwant Singh Sawhney. She submits that the majority decision in Satwant Singh Sawhney refused to accept that the Government's absolute discretion in the matters of issuing a passport. It has held that the right to travel abroad is a part of the person's personal liberty; he could not be deprived of it except by procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution. Then, as there was no law establishing any procedure, the Government had no right to refuse a passport to any person who might have applied for it. Thus came into being the Passport Act, 1967. It regulates the passport issuing, besides providing the mechanism, too. In fact, of the Act, Sections 6 and 10 are pivotal. And these have been considered by the Courts often.