National security vs right to travel: Why Telangana High Court refused to restore Hyderabad journalist’s revoked passport

The petitioner’s passport expired in August 2018, and subsequently, a new passport valid till July 2028 was issued to him. However, the passport authorities decided to revoke the passport in October 2019 and requested him to submit the passport, without calling for any explanation or an opportunity to represent himself.

He approached the high court in 2020, urging the court to declare the action of passport authorities in revoking his passport on the alleged pretext of a letter from the Intelligence department, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Personal file maintained to keep his unlawful activities under lens: Passport officials

The Regional Passport Authority (second respondent) contended that they had received a “secret letter” from the Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Department in October 2019 stating that the petitioner “may or is likely to engage outside India in the activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India” and hence his passport should be revoked. The second respondent submitted to the court that the Intelligence Department, while not recommending issuance of a passport to the petitioner, has stated that the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India and that “a personal file is maintained at the Special Branch at Shamshabad zone to keep his unlawful activities under surveillance.”

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad (fourth respondent), also filed a counter stating that the petitioner was an accused in a case in 1998 but was acquitted in 2002. The officer submitted that the petitioner “has connections with ISI activists Mohammad Saleem Junaid and he concealed one Pistol of 30 rounds and 1 kg of potassium chloride mixer at his cycle shop godown.” He also submitted that the petitioner aired his views in favour of one community in 2018 when an issue was raised between the Sunni and Shia sects in the city. In 2019, the petitioner is alleged to have shot a video and made it viral “in order to corrupt the minds of a particular sect of people”.

The petitioner, on his part, argued that he had not concealed the FIR against him, and the said case was acquitted in June 2002, and the state has not preferred any appeal.

‘Only bald denials’

The court’s judgment of January 29 upheld the decision of the passport authorities, who had refused the petitioner’s application based on adverse reports from law enforcement agencies. The court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the passport revocation order of October 2019 “for the reasons known to him” and added that the petitioner only sought to set aside the second respondent’s order of December 2019, which was only a clarification to the letter submitted by the petitioner in November 2019.

The court took note of the detailed counter of the police commissioner regarding the petitioner’s activities in 2018 and 2019. The court also noted that a separate file was maintained against him to keep a vigil on his unlawful activities, and he was under surveillance by the police. The court also considered the letter from the IGP, Intelligence Department, to the passport authority stating that issuance of a passport or travel document of the petitioner may be refused, as he may likely “engage with anti-national elements/handlers outside India and his activities are prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.”

“Though petitioner filed rejoinder, except bald denials, there is no specific denial about concealment of Pistol having 30 rounds and possession of potassium chloride and his connections with ISI,” the court recorded. Citing all these reasons, the court added that it did not feel any justification in favour of the petitioner to grant relief. The court also rejected the petitioner’s prayer for applying principles of natural justice, stating that there were exceptions to the principles.

Noting that the renewal of a passport is not an automatic one and is governed by the rules and regulations, and that it should be used properly, the judge underscored that “when public interest, national security, impracticality, confidentiality are involved, the question of applying principles of natural justice does not arise.” Hence, the writ petition was dismissed, and it was concluded that the passport authorities had acted within their rights by relying on intelligence reports regarding national security.