2004 (7) TMI 686 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Arbitrary denial of passports to petitioners.
2. Alleged involvement of petitioners' relative in criminal activities.
3. Application of Section 6(2)(b) of the Passports Act.
4. Requirement of police verification for passport issuance.
5. Constitutional right to travel abroad.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Arbitrary denial of passports to petitioners:
The petitioners, Rajinder Kaur and Gurdeep Kaur, applied for passports, complying with all necessary rules and submitted their applications on 12-3-2003. Despite visiting the passport office on several occasions, they were informed that the police report from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, was incorrect, leading to the denial of passports. The petitioners claimed no involvement in any criminal activities and argued that the denial was arbitrary and baseless. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, and a Division Bench judgment in Kamaljit Kaur v. Union of India, CWP No. 4226 of 2001, to assert their entitlement to passports.

2. Alleged involvement of petitioners' relative in criminal activities:
The respondents contested the petition, highlighting that the husband and son of the petitioners, Gurbachan Singh, was involved in multiple criminal cases and was wanted by the police. The respondents argued that issuing passports to the petitioners could potentially aid Gurbachan Singh, who was indulging in terrorist activities and had obtained a passport using false information. The police authorities listed eight FIRs against Gurbachan Singh, including charges under the IPC and TADA Act, and expressed concerns that the petitioners might assist him in anti-national activities.

3. Application of Section 6(2)(b) of the Passports Act:
The respondents invoked Section 6(2)(b) of the Passports Act, which allows the passport authority to refuse issuance if the applicant is likely to engage in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India. The court emphasized that any such refusal must be based on reasonable and cogent material. The court noted that the respondents failed to produce any records or substantial evidence to support their claims, rendering their objections vague and indefinite.

4. Requirement of police verification for passport issuance:
The respondents argued that a clear police investigation report was mandatory before issuing a passport, as per Government of India instructions dated 28-10-1999. However, the court observed that the police verification report was not supported by any substantial records. The court reiterated that the authorities must apply their mind to the facts of each case and make decisions based on objective and reasonable grounds, rather than vague and unsupported allegations.

5. Constitutional right to travel abroad:
The court referenced the Supreme Court's expansion of the right to travel abroad as a fundamental right in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836, and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. The court held that executive actions affecting this right must be supported by legislative authority and reasonable grounds. The court emphasized that the authorities must adhere to the principles of natural justice and ensure that any refusal to issue a passport is based on substantial and relevant material.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the respondents failed to provide any material evidence to support their claims under Section 6(2)(b) of the Passports Act. The allegations against the petitioners were vague and unsupported by records. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioners' applications for passports and issue them in accordance with the law, unless they have substantial material to justify refusal under Section 6(2)(b). The petitions were allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.