Case title:
Sajad Ahmad Khan (Through: - Mr. Areeb Javed Kawoosa, Advocate) v. Union of India and
others
Date of Order:
31 st May,2025
Bench:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu Sharma
Parties:
Sajad Ahmad Khan (Through: - Mr. Areeb Javed Kawoosa, Advocate) – Petitioner
Union of India and others - Respondent
SUBJECT
A retired senior citizen who was previously the District Magistrate of Poonch, J&K challenged a
court order that refused to release his passport, which had been seized during a CBI investigation due to the allegations of illegally obtaining gun licenses levied against him.The petitioner that this action violated his fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution, especially since no charge sheet had been filed and the impoundment was pursued just because of an FIR registered against him.
The court while delivering its decision noted that proper legal procedure, including notice and reasons, was not followed before impounding the passport, which violated Article 21 of the Constitution, and it further relied on past Supreme Court rulings to emphasize that restrictions on such rights must follow fair legal steps. It was lastly, and most importantly noted that that mere FIR in the absence of a chargesheet being filed is not a valid reason for confiscating an individual’s passport.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS (relevant to the case)
1. THE PASSPORTS ACT, 1967
Section 10. Variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents (3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke a passport or travel document, -
(c) if the passport authority deems it necessary so to do 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;
(e) if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India.
FACTUAL OVERVIEW
- The petitioner, a retired senior citizen of India, has challenged the order of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption CBI Cases, Jammu, which rejected his application for the release of his passport bearing No. N2274313. 1
- The petitioner claims that his passport was seized by respondents on 12.10.2021 including two mobile phones and one original gift deed, and they then informed the petitioner that FIR No. RCCHG0512018S0006 was registered regarding arms license issuance by the Deputy Commissioners of UT of Jammu and Kashmir. 2
- The petitioner was called to the CBI office in Chandigarh and was asked for his passport and other items, to which he voluntarily complied with. Subsequently, the Regional Passport Officer in Srinagar informed him that his passport was suspended due to security threats under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act. Consecutively, he was asked to contact the officer before 17.12.2021. 3
- After this, the respondent No. 4 informed him about impounding his passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, but there was no show cause notice indicating the need to revoke it in the interest of India's sovereignty and integrity, and the only allegation made against the petitioner is related to FIR No. RCCHG0512018S0006. 4
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the order of the Regional Passport Officer to impound the passport of the petitioner has been validly exercised by him in this case?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The petitioner contests the order of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, CBI cases ‘order which ruled that all his other items can be released except his passport. The petitioner has stated that he plans to travel abroad for religious pilgrimage to Haj/Umrah (which is the only reason he wants to travel abroad) and requires a passport to enable his travel, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 5
- Furthermore, the petitioner has not committed any crimes that would put the nation's security or national interest at risk, and also since the petitioner's passport has been in the respondents' custody for more than three years, it is argued that it being impounded is no longer necessary for the investigation to be carried on. 6
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondents argued that the CBI had registered two cases in CBI, SCB, Chandigarh and conducted a detailed investigation, during which the role of the petitioner was found to have been established for conspiracy with gun houses for issuance of Arms License illegally in view of the monetary considerations using false information and forged documents. 7
- Additionally, during 2012-2016, Deputy Commissioners of various districts had fraudulently and illegally issued gun licenses during 2012-16, violating norms and procedures, leading to a violation of Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.After an investigation, prime roles of licensing authorities, accused, and gun dealers were found out in seven districts, and the petitioner's role was also established in the same investigation. 8
- Lastly, in case the passport of the petitioner is released, there is reasonable apprehension that the petitioner may abstain from the judicial proceedings, thereby, jeopardizing the larger interest of the case. 9
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- As per the precedents laid down in the cases of Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam, report in AIR 1967 SC 1836 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India”,(1978) 1 SCC 248, According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, no one's right to travel may be restricted until the legal process is followed. 10
- The apex court’s findings have increased the extent of freedom of travel since it compared to a fundamental right and constitutional protection that all citizens of this nation are entitled to. Hence, no one can be denied this right unless the State has passed a law outlining the process for doing so and the deprivation is carried out as per that procedure. 11
- Furthermore, The Passports, Act, 1967 outlines the circumstances for issuing, refusing,cancelling, or impounded passports and prescribes a procedure for doing so. However,the question arises whether this prescription is sufficient compliance with Article 21, as the procedure must not be arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonably unreasonable. 12
- The petitioner's passport is being impounded under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act,
but the passport authority has not provided any evidence to support their actions. As per
procedure, the authority must record a brief statement of reasons and provide a copy to
the holder whenever requested for, and this requirement has not been complied with in
this case. 13 - The impounding of a passport under Section 10 of the Passports Act is a significant restriction on citizens' fundamental rights. The order of impounding a passport without sufficient cause or following natural justice principles can be set aside. The mere registration of the FIR by the investigation agency is not enough to refuse to issue, renew,or impound the passport. It is only upon filing a charge sheet and court cognizance of the offence that a criminal case is pending. 14
- The registration of a criminal case does not constitute proceedings being pending against a person before a criminal court and also, Section 10(3) only applies if a chargesheet has been filed, which is not the case in this case. As no chargesheet has been filed, the passport cannot have been impounded. 15
- Lastly, the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India has already established that principles of natural justice should be applied in any action under Section 10(3) (c) of the Act, making the impounding of a passport liable to be set aside in the present case being brought to the bench. 16. 16
CONCLUSION
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition was allowed by Ms. Justice Sindhu Sharma. The impugned order dated 11.09.2021, passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI Cases, Jammu, to the extent of refusal to release the passport, was set aside and so was the communication dated 03.02.2023, directing impounding of the passport of the petitioner. The Regional Passport Officer was further directed to pass an appropriate order either to release the passport of the petitioner or issue a fresh passport to him after the completion of all formalities. 17
