The Delhi High Court has ruled that authorities do not have the right to deny a passport to an Indian resident simply because the person has applied for asylum in a foreign country.
The judgement was passed by a Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sanjeev Sachdeva in regards to an appeal filed by the Centre against a single-judge ruling which had quashed the government’s decision to refuse passports to three individuals who had sought political asylum abroad.
The Bench has agreed with the decision to quash the authorities’ act of holding applications of such applicants under the category of prior approval in order to deny passport to them.
“Likely To Act Against Sovereignty And Integrity Of India”
In their petition, the three stated that they had sought political asylum in foreign countries while they were aboard, but have been denied passports by varied passport offices of India for five years on the grounds that they “are likely to engage in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India”.
The government has argued that these decisions are based on section 6(1)(a) of the Passports Act, 1967, which provides that where “the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India” , it can be a valid ground for denying passport.
The high court’s division bench however pointed out that it was a citizen’s fundamental right to travel overseas, and stated that the “sovereignty and integrity of the country are robust concepts “ which can “withstand” any action by isolated individuals seeking political asylum.
No Evidence of Working Against Country
Advocate Abhik Kumar, representing one of the petitioners, argued that there was no evidence to suggest that any of applicants had at any time indulged in behaviour that could be seen as “overt action”.
He noted that they had never been “part of any conspiracy with groups” that were working to undermine the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The bench agreed with the petitioners and noted that “the act of seeking political asylum in a foreign land” cannot be considered as a ground for denying a passport under the Act.
The verdict notes that the provisions of the act should not be strictly interpreted as they can lead to “depriving a person of his essential rights.” The court has urged that “such deprivation should not be done lightly,” and should be done within “the confines of the legislative provision”.
The counsel for the Central government Rajesh Gogna had argued that the very act of applying for political asylum indicated that the applicant/writ petitioner had vowed allegiance to the laws and Constitution of the other country and has disowned the laws and Constitution of his country of birth.
