Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SD/-(S.C.Singh) Joint Secretary (CPV) and Chief Passport Officer.

(7) The respondents have filed their counter affidavit to the writ petition wherein the following picas are taken that will formulate the grounds of impugned action:

(A)The petitioner is a "non-resident Indian" and is wife of lqbal Memon @ lqbal Mirchi, the prime suspect in the Bombay Blast case. The petitioner had applied for additional visa sheets/renewal of her passport to the Consulate General of India, Dubai-Respondent No. 3 on 10.6.1996. The Consulate General of India, Dubai-Respondent No. 3 thought it fit to refer her case to the Officer of Chief Passport Visa Division of Ministry of External Affairs and the same was referred to the officer of Chief Passport Visa Division of Ministry of External Affairs on 23rd June, 1996. The Chief Passport Visa Division in turn sought clearance from Central Bureau of Investigation, who are handling the Bombay Blast case. On 31st July, 1996 it was informed that Narcotics Cell, Mumbai has frozen the properties of Iqbal Memon and his wife Smt. Hajra/Hazra Iqbal Memon and the process of the forfeiture of their properties to the Government of India is in progress. There is apprehension that if the Petitioner comes to India/Mumbai, it is likely that she may secretly dispose off the properties in her name and also the properties in the name of lqbal Memon and the Narcotics Cell, Mumbai have requested not to grant additional visa sheet on her passport till. the finalisation of the forfeiture proceed ;ings of the property. The Superintendent of Police, CBI:STF: new Delhi informed that the Narcotics Cell, Mumbai has made a request that passport granted to the petitioner may be impounded/revoked under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act by Uo dated 16th August, 1996. Shri V.P.Bhatia, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs has confirmed the position to impound/revoke the passport of the petitioner under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act in the interest of the general public by O.M. dated 12th September, 1996. Based on the aforesaid communication Chief Past Visa Division in the Ministry of External Affairs issued Circular No. VI/405/1/68/93 Pt. V dated 18th September, 1996 impounding her passport. On 25th September, 1996 it was informed that her passport has been impounded under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act and she has aright to appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act within 30 days of the order.

(4)The passport authority may also revoke a passport or travel document on the application of the holder thereof.

(5)Where the passport authority makes an order varying or cancelling the endorsements on, or varying the conditions of, a passport or travel document under sub-section (1) or an order impounding or revoking a passport or travel document under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing a brief statement of the reasons for making such order and furnish to the holder of the passport or travel document on demand a copy of the same unless in any case the passport authority is of the opinion that it will not he in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interests of the general public to furnish such a copy.

(6)The authority to whom the passport authority is subordinate may, by order in writing, impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document on any ground on which it may be impounded or revoked by the passport authority and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the impounding or revocation of a passport or travel document by such authority.

(7)A court convicting the holder of a passport or travel document of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also revoke the passport or travel document: Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise the revocation shall become void.

(14) The law is next elucidated in the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi (supra). Paragraph 3 reads as follows: "3.Before we examine the rival arguments urged on behalf of the parties in regard to the various questions arising in this petition, it would be convenient to set out the relevant provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. This Act was enacted on June 24, 1967 in view of the decision of this Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi. The position which obtained prior to the coming into force of this Act was that there was no law regulating the issue of passports for leaving the shores of India and going abroad. The issue of passports was entirely within the discretion of the executive and this discretion was unguided and unchannelled. This Court, by a majority, held that the expression "personal liberty" in Article 21 lakes in the right of locomotion and travel abroad and under Article 21 no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad except according to the procedure established by law and since no law had been made by the State regulating or prohibiting the exercise of such right, the refusal of passport was in violation of Article 21 and moreover the discretion with the executive in the matter of issuing or refusing passport being unchannelled and arbitrary, it was plainly violative of Article 14 and hence the order refusing passport to the petitioner was also invalid under that article. This decision was accepted by Parliament and the infirmity pointed out by it was set right by the enactment of the Passports Act 1967. This Act, as its Preamble shows, was enacted to provide for the issue of passports and travel documents to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and other persons and for incidental and ancillary matters, Section 3 provides that no person shall depart from or attempt to depart from India unless he holds in this behalf a valid passport or travel document. What are the different classes of passports and travel documents which can be issued under the Act is laid down in Section 4. Section 5, sub-section (1) provides for making of an application for issue of a passport or travel document or for endorsement on such passport or travel document for visiting foreign country or countries and sub-section (2) says that on receipt of such application, the passport authority, after making such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, shall, by order in writing, issue or refuse to issue the passport or travel document or make or refuse to make on the passport or travel document endorsement in respect of one or more of the foreign countries specified in the application. Sub-section (3) requires the passport authority, where it refuses to issue the passport or travel document or to make any endorsement on the passport or travel document, to record in writing a brief statement of its reasons for making such order. Section 6, sub-section (1) lays down the grounds on which the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country and provides that on no other ground the endorsement shall be refused. There are four grounds set out in this sub-section and of them, the last is that, in the opinion of the Central Government, the presence of the applicant in such foreign country is not in the public interest. Similarly sub-section (2) of Section 6 specifies the grounds on which alone-and on no other grounds-the passport authority shall refuse to issue passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country and amongst various grounds set out there, the last is that, in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest. Then we come to Section 10 which is the material section which falls for consideration. Sub-section (1) of that section empowers the passport authority to vary or cancel the endorsement of a passport or travel document or to vary or cancel the conditions subject to which a passport or travel document has been issued, having regard inter alia, to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 6 or any notification under Section 19. Sub-section (2) confers powers on the passport authority to vary or cancel the conditions of the passport or travel document on the application of the holder of the passport or travel document and with the previous approval of the Central Government. Sub-section (3) provides that the passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document on the grounds set out in clauses (a) to (h). The order impounding the passport in the present case was made by the Central Government under clause (c) which reads as follows: (c) If the passport authority deems it necessary so to do in the interest of the Sovereignty and Integrity of India, the security of India friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general public; The particular ground relied upon for making the order was that set out in the last part of clause (c), namely, that the Central Government deems it necessary to impound the passport "in the interests of the general public". Then follows sub-section (5) which requires the passport authority impounding or revoking a passport or travel document or varying or cancelling an endorsement made upon it to "record in writing a brief statement of the reasons for making such order and furnish to the holder of the passport or travel document on demand a copy of the same unless, in any case, the passport authority is of the opinion that it will non be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interests of the general public to furnish such a copy". It was in virtue of the provision contained in the latter part of this sub-section that the Central Government declined to furnish a copy of the statement of reasons for impounding the passport of the petitioner on the ground that it was not in the interests of the general public to furnish such copy to the petitioner. It is indeed a matter of regret that the Central Government should have taken up this attitude in reply to the request of the petitioner to be supplied a copy of the statement of reasons, because ultimately, when the petition came to be filed, the Central Government did disclose the reasons in the affidavit in reply to the petition which shows that it was not really contrary to public interest and if we look at the reasons given in the affidavit in reply, it will be clear that no reasonable person could possibly have taken the view that the interests of the general public would be prejudiced by the disclosure of the reasons. This is an instance showing how power conferred on a statutory authority to act in the interests of the general public can sometimes be improperly exercised. If the petitioner had not filed the petition, she would perhaps never have been able to find out what were the reasons for which her passport was impounded and she was deprived of her right to go abroad. The necessity of giving reasons has obviously been introduced in sub-section (5) so that it may act as a healthy check against abuse or misuse of power. If the reasons given are not relevant and there is no nexus between the reasons and the ground on which the passport has been impounded, it would be open to the holder of the passport to challenge the order impounding it in a Court of law and if the court is satisfied that the reasons are extraneous or irrelevant, the Court would strike down the order. This liability to be exposed to judicial scrutiny would by itself act as a safeguard against improper or mala fide exercise of power. The Court would, therefore, be very slow to accept, without close scrutiny, the claim of the passport authority that it would not be in the interests of the general public to disclose the reasons. The passport authority would have to satisfy the Court by placing proper material that the giving of reasons would be clearly and indubitably against the interests of the general public and if the Court is not so satisfied, the Court may require the passport authority to disclose the reasons, subject to any valid and lawful claim for privilege which may be set up on behalf of the Government. Here in the present case, as we have already pointed out, the Central Government did initially claim that it would be against the interests of the general public to disclose the reasons for impounding the passport, but when it came to filing the affidavit in reply, the Central Government very properly abandoned this unsustainable claim and disclosed the reasons. The question whether these reasons have any nexus with the interests of the general public or they are extraneous and irrelevant is a matter which we shall examine when we deal with the arguments of the parties. Meanwhile, proceeding further with the resume of the relevant provisions, reference may be made to Section 11 which provides for an appeal inter alia against the order impounding or revoking a passport or travel document under subsection (3) of Section 10. But there is a proviso to this section which says that if the order impounding or revoking a passport or travel document is passed by the Central Government, there shall he no right of appeal. These are the relevant provisions of the Act in the light of which we have to consider the constitutionality of sub-section (3)(c) of Section 10 and the validity of the order impounding the passport of the petitioner."