A passport serves as an essential travel document issued by a country's government, authorizing its holder to travel internationally and return to the home country. In India, the regulation of passport issuance, suspension, and revocation falls under the Passports Act of 1967. While this document is vital for international travel, its revocation can lead to serious personal and professional ramifications.

Implications of Revocation of Passport:

The revocation of a passport can significantly affect an individual's personal, professional, and legal situation. One immediate consequence is the restriction on international travel, which can disrupt career opportunities, educational pursuits, and family obligations. Additionally, such a revocation often carries a social stigma, as it is typically associated with serious allegations like criminal activity or anti-national behaviour, leading to potential damage to one's reputation. Furthermore, those affected may face legal challenges, including complications in obtaining visas or other travel documents in the future. For professionals who work abroad or frequently travel internationally, this revocation could result in job loss or considerable career obstacles.

Legal Framework:
Section 14 of the Passports Act, 1967, empowers designated officials such as customs officers, police officers, or emigration officers of at least sub-inspector rank, to conduct searches and seizures. These officials act under the direction of the Central or State Government through a general or special order and are authorized to seize passports or travel documents from individuals suspected of offences under Section 12.

The rules governing searches and seizures as per the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, apply to these operations unless they conflict with the provisions of the Passports Act. In such cases, the Passports Act, being a special law, overrides the BNSS, which serves as general law.

The Passports Act, 1967, is the legislative foundation for issuing and revoking passports in India. Enforced by the Ministry of External Affairs through Passport Seva Kendras (PSKs) and Regional Passport Offices (RPOs), this Act simplifies and regulates the process of obtaining passports and travel documents. Importantly, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution safeguards the right to travel abroad, as interpreted through judicial decisions.

However, this right is subject to specific legal conditions under which a passport may be confiscated. Any decision to impound or revoke a passport must follow due process, and the absence of a valid explanation would amount to administrative overreach, a practice firmly rejected by the judiciary.

The principles of natural justice play a critical role in this process. These principles ensure that an accused is granted a fair opportunity to present their case and that no individual serves as a judge in their own matter. Additionally, a third principle emphasizes the right to receive a clear rationale for any decision impacting the individual. Often, passport holders do not receive adequate explanations for seizures or impounding, particularly under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, which governs such actions.

Under Section 10 (3), the passport authority has the power to revoke or impound a passport for specific reasons. These include situations where the document is wrongfully possessed, obtained through the concealment of material facts or false information, or if the holder acquires an additional passport. Actions may also be taken to safeguard India's sovereignty, national security, friendly international relations, or public interest.

Furthermore, the authority can act if the passport holder has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, leading to at least two years of imprisonment after the document was issued. Pending criminal proceedings, violations of passport conditions, or failure to comply with a notice to surrender the document also serve as grounds for revocation or impounding.

In cases where a court has issued a warrant, summons, or prohibited the holder from leaving India, the passport authority can take action after confirming the court's orders. Additionally, Section 10(4) allows the holder to voluntarily apply for the revocation of their passport.

Section 10(7) provides for revocation in cases where the holder is convicted of an offense under the Act or its rules, with the proviso that such revocation becomes void if the conviction is overturned on appeal. Section 10(8) further enables the appellate court or High Court to order the revocation of a passport during the exercise of their revisionary powers.

These provisions underscore a legal framework designed to balance the individual's constitutional right to travel with the nation's security, public interest, and the rule of law.

Rights and Remedies against the Revocation of Passport:

Under Section 10(5) of the Passports Act, it is mandated that before a passport can be revoked, the appropriate authority must grant the passport holder an opportunity to argue against the revocation decision. This requirement is put in place to ensure fairness, with the notable exception being situations where immediate action is deemed essential for national security purposes.

Furthermore, individuals possess the right to challenge the revocation of their passports under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, empowering them to seek judicial intervention in the High Court. The judiciary serves as a vital guardian against arbitrary actions taken by the government, ensuring that individuals are not unjustly deprived of their travel documents.

The provisions outlined in the Passports Act allow individuals the chance to contest any decisions made regarding the revocation of their passports. Those adversely affected by such decisions have the right to file an appeal with the Regional Passport Officer/Ministry of External Affairs, effectively requesting a re-evaluation of their circumstances. This administrative process is crucial as it gives individuals a formal avenue to express their concerns and seek rectification.

In addition to this administrative pathway, the judicial system plays an equally significant role in safeguarding individuals' rights by ensuring that decisions to revoke passports are not made capriciously. Courts have consistently acted as a protective mechanism, enabling individuals to seek relief through writ petitions filed under Article 226 when they believe their passport has been wrongfully revoked.

Moreover, in cases where a passport has been revoked due to an individual's failure to adhere to legal obligations, the Passports Act provides a provision for the reissuance of the passport. This reissuance can take place once the individual has addressed and rectified the issues that led to the revocation.

Such issues may include settling any outstanding debts, resolving legal disputes, or fulfilling other regulatory requirements. Consequently, there exists a structured framework that not only allows individuals the opportunity to appeal against unfavourable decisions but also supports their reintegration into compliance with legal standards. This framework is essential for upholding the principles of justice and accountability, ensuring that individuals have a pathway to reclaim their rights and freedoms.

Court Judgments:
In the realm of passport law, significant legal precedents have shaped the understanding of an individual's rights concerning their passport. Notably, the revocation of a previously issued passport does not prevent the passport holder from applying for a new one. This principle was underscored in the case of Mohd. Irfan Gani v. Union of India (30.09.2011) by the Delhi High Court, which affirmed that such revocation might be a factor in the decision to issue a fresh passport but does not serve as an outright barrier.

The legal framework governing the revocation or impounding of passports is strictly outlined under the provisions of the Passports Act, as established in Arockia Jeyabalan v. The Regional Passport Officer (15.09.2014) by the Madras High Court. This case clarified that only the Act itself provides the necessary authority for such actions.

Moreover, the courts have scrutinized conditions related to bail, particularly concerning passport retention. In Pushpal Swarnkar v. State of Chhattisgarh (03.12.2008), the Chhattisgarh High Court determined that a court order requiring the deposit of a passport and visa as a bail condition may lack legal sustainability.

Contrarily, in Krushnakant Kantilal Pancholi v. State of Gujarat (05.09.2008), the Gujarat High Court held that criminal courts do possess the authority to impose conditions related to the surrender of a passport when releasing an accused on bail.

The importance of personal liberty in connection to the right to travel abroad was recognized long before the Passports Act was enacted. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam (1967), the Supreme Court affirmed that the right to travel is an essential aspect of personal liberty, laying the groundwork for the protective measures that would later be codified in the Passports Act.

The court's authority regarding passport revocation in matters of national security was further examined in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), which upheld the government's right to revoke passports when individual actions pose a potential threat to state security. This ruling highlighted the delicate balance that must be maintained between individual rights and the overarching interests of the state.

In subsequent cases like Suresh Nanda v. CBI, the court addressed the unjust withholding of passports. It declared that retaining a passport on the premise of secure custody until trial was unreasonable, emphasizing that possession of a passport is a fundamental right associated with the freedom to travel.

Similarly, in Hardik Shah v. Union of India, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that retaining a traveller's passport without sufficient justification infringes upon their fundamental right to life and personal liberty, as protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Justice Sujoy Paul further articulated that the mere existence of ongoing legal proceedings or the issuance of a red corner notice does not justify the confiscation of an individual's passport.

Through these cases, the courts have consistently reinforced the notion that while the state has certain powers concerning passports, individual rights, particularly those related to personal liberty and the right to travel, must also be rigorously protected.

Conclusion:
Individual passport holders can be impacted substantially by the revocation or cancellation of passports. The Passports Act of 1967 provides a detailed structure for the revocation process while incorporating protections against the abuse of authority. Judicial rulings have played a vital role in striking a balance between individual rights and governmental interests. To promote fairness in these proceedings, it is crucial that authorities adhere to the principles of natural justice.

Furthermore, individuals must be kept informed about their rights throughout the process. This ensures that, while the state can act in its interests, individuals are not left vulnerable and are aware of their entitlements, allowing for a more equitable handling of passport revocations. Overall, the interplay of legal frameworks, judicial oversight, and respect for personal rights is essential in addressing the serious implications of passport revocation.

References:

• Kumar, A. (2021). Laws on passport in India. Clever Fox Publishing.
• Tandon, A. (2024). Indian citizenship and immigration law. Niyogi Books.
• Dewan, V. K. (2010). Law of citizenship, foreigners & passports (4th ed.). Asia Law House.
• EBC Publishing (P) Ltd. (1967). Passports Act, 1967. Lucknow.
• Madan, K., & Madaan, S. (2023). Legal implications of impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents. SCC OnLine Blog Exp, 62.

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