The impounding of a passport refers to the temporary suspension of its validity by the authority that issued it. During this period, the passport is confiscated and cannot be utilized for travel or identification purposes. This measure is usually implemented for various reasons, including ongoing investigations, security issues, or breaches of legal obligations. Although the passport is taken into custody, it remains the property of the issuing authority and is only held temporarily.

If the circumstances that led to the impoundment are addressed and resolved, the passport may be returned to its rightful owner. This process serves to safeguard national security and ensure compliance with legal standards, ultimately upholding the integrity of travel documentation. In summary, passport impoundment acts as a precautionary measure, balancing the need for individual rights with public safety and legal adherence.

Legal Framework:
Passports are vital legal documents issued by governments for international travel and citizenship recognition. In India, the Passport Acts of 1967 regulates the processes of issuance, suspension, seizure, and impoundment of passports. Impounding can be executed without the physical passport present, even if the passport holder is abroad. Once a passport is impounded, the passport holder’s continuous stay in a foreign country becomes unlawful, as their passport or travel document is rendered invalid. This situation is addressed in Section 10 (2) (c) of the Passports Act.

Impounding a passport, as defined by Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, is the formal annulment of its validity by the designated Passport Authority for specific reasons, such as fraud, suppression of information, or ongoing criminal proceedings. This action requires adherence to established procedures, including notifying the passport holder and allowing them an opportunity to present their case, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice outlined in Section 10(5).

Impounding effectively renders the passport unusable until it is restored or reissued after certain legal conditions are met, permanently limiting the holder's ability to use it for travel or identification. Decisions regarding impounding can be appealed to higher authorities or subjected to judicial review, ensuring oversight within the system. An example of impounding is when the Passport Authority withholds a passport due to the applicant's failure to disclose pending criminal charges, resulting in the inability to use the passport until the issue is resolved.

The power of courts and various governmental bodies to mandate the impounding or surrender of passports has sparked considerable debate and discussion. Different high courts have issued conflicting rulings on this matter. Some high courts maintain that only passport authorities possess the authority to impound passports, while others assert that, in certain circumstances, courts and other agencies, such as customs authorities, may also issue orders for the deposit or surrender of passports.

Section 10(3) of the Passports Act clearly specifies the reasons for passport impoundment. These reasons can include the withholding of crucial information, involvement in fraudulent activities, pending criminal cases, or circumstances where the use of the passport could harm the public interest. Additionally, Section 10(5) ensures the right to a hearing of the respondent before a passport can be impounded.

Court Judgments:

• Under section 102(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now referenced in section 106 of the BNSS), the police are authorized to seize a passport, but they do not possess the authority to impound it. We believe that, while the police can seize a passport as per section 102(1) of the CrPC, they lack the power to impound it, a responsibility reserved for the Passport Authority under section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, as established in the case of Suresh Nanda v. CBI, 2008 (3) SCC 674 = AIR 2008 SC 1414.
   
• While it is correct that there is no avenue for appeal against an order impounding a passport issued by the Central Government, it is crucial to note that this power is exercised directly by the Central Government itself. Their Lordships pointed out in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. The Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, Para 65; (1978) 2 SCJ 312, that it is reasonable to presume the Central Government will exercise this power judiciously and with respect. Given that such power is vested in a high authority like the Central Government, assumptions of abuse of power should not be taken lightly. Moreover, if there is indeed an abuse of power, the judiciary is equipped to intervene and rectify the situation.
   
• In the Maneka Gandhi case, their Lordships expressed optimism and confidence that when a person's passport is impounded under section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, such impoundment will be for a defined period that is not excessively long, even if no fundamental rights are contravened.
   
• It is well-established that the authority must provide notice to the petitioner and allow them the opportunity to present their explanation before taking steps to impound a passport, as clarified in the case of Hassan Ali Khan v. Regional Passport Officer, AIR 1998 A.P. 232.
   
• In the ruling of Hussam-ud-din-Ahmed v. Union of India, AIR 1999 J&K 136, it was determined that the petitioner must be informed of the information that served as the foundation for issuing an order under section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act. Otherwise, effective appeal rights are compromised; if the information cannot be conveyed, at minimum, the petitioner should be allowed to examine the file containing the pertinent materials.
   
• In the case of Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008), the Supreme Court determined that police authorities lack the jurisdiction to impound passports; only the Passport Authority has this statutory power, as outlined in Section 10 of the Passport Act. Even courts cannot impound a passport.
   
• In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. This ruling requires that the principles of natural justice be observed when a passport is impounded.
   
• The case of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967) played a significant role in the enforcement of the Passport Act, highlighting that the government's power to regulate passports must align with constitutional rights.
   
• Only the passport authority designated by the Passports Act has the authority to impound a passport, as established in the case of Luingam Luithui v. Union of India on August 23, 2017, by the Delhi High Court.
   
• The revocation or impoundment of a passport can solely occur under the provisions of the Passports Act, as determined in the case of Arockia Jeyabalan v. The Regional Passport Officer on September 15, 2014, by the Madras High Court.
   
• No executing court possesses the authority to impound the passport of a judgment debtor, as established in the case of Jose Peter v. C.K. Vijaya Kumar on June 18, 2009, by the Kerala High Court.
   
• A court's order requiring the deposit of a passport and visa as a bail condition may not be enforceable, as ruled in the case of Pushpal Swarnkar v. State of Chhattisgarh on December 3, 2008, by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
   
• In the case of Krushnakant Kantilal Pancholi v. State of Gujarat on September 5, 2008, the Gujarat High Court determined that a criminal court has the authority to impose conditions, including the requirement to deposit or surrender a passport, when granting bail to an accused individual.
   
• Furthermore, the Passports Act does not include any provision that permits an employer to retain an employee's passport, even in situations where disciplinary actions or investigations are ongoing, as decided in the case of Norman Swaroop Isaac v. State Bank of India, AIR 2007 AP 40.
   
• Although the police have the authority to seize a passport according to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), they do not have the right to hold or impound it, as those actions can only be carried out by the passport authority. Hence, if the police seize a passport, it must send the same along with a letter to the passport authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in section 10(3) of the Passports Act. Thereafter, the passport authority would decide whether to impound the passport or not, as ruled in the matter of Suresh Nanda, 2008 (3) SCC 674.
   
• In situations where impounding a passport is justified, there is no need to issue a separate order for the surrender of the passport, as the term "impounding" inherently includes the act of seizing the passport, as established in the case of Hitesh Kapoor v. Union of India, 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 135.
   
• It is not permissible to impound a passport under the pretext of serving the public interest in order to force a resolution between conflicting parties or to secure the collection of funds. Such actions, even if conducted in good faith, will not be supported by the courts, as determined in the case of Rohit Goswamy v. Ministry of External Affairs, 18.09.2017, Delhi High Court.
   
• Criminal Courts must exercise significant caution when imposing conditions related to the surrender of passports. It is not appropriate to automatically impose a passport surrender condition in every case where the accused possesses a passport. The court must evaluate the risk of the accused fleeing from justice if released on bail. Additionally, the court needs to determine whether the interests of justice necessitate restricting the accused's right to movement during the ongoing proceedings by requiring the surrender of their passport, as established in the ruling of V.A. Mohammed Rafik v. Union of India, 2011 (3) KJL 183.
   

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the processes surrounding passport impoundment is vital for maintaining public order; however, it is essential to strike a careful balance between protecting individual rights and serving the interests of the state. To enhance this balance, it is recommended that clear and specific legal guidelines be established for the impoundment of passports to minimize ambiguity and confusion.

Furthermore, there should be the implementation of robust procedural safeguards during the impoundment process, which must include defined timelines for appeals to ensure timely justice. Additionally, continuous training programs for law enforcement and administrative personnel will be imperative in upholding judicial decisions and adhering to constitutional mandates. By undertaking these measures, we can ensure a more equitable system that integrates the rule of law with respect for personal liberties.

References:

• Tandon, A. (2022). Indian Citizenship and Immigration Law. Niyogi Books.
• Dewan, V. K. (2010). Law of Citizenship, Foreigners & Passports (4th ed.). Asia Law House.
• Kumar, A. (2021). Laws on Passport in India. Clever Fox Publishing.
• EBC. (2024). Passports Act, 1967.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565