PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. CHARANJIT KAUR
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/01/1987
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
KHALID, V. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 1057 1987 SCR (1)1080
1987 SCC (1) 671 JT 1987 (1) 195
1987 SCALE (1)86
ACT:
Passport Act, 1967: ss. 10(3)(c) &
10(5)--Passport--Impoundment of for activities detrimental
to sovereignty, integrity and security of India--Relevancy
of material.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent, wife of a protagonist of Khalistan
residing abroad, during her visit to India was found meeting
extremist leaders in Punjab. Her passport was impounded by
the Regional Passport Officer under s. 10(3)(c) of the
Passport Act, 1967 in view of the grave nature of her activ-
ities and serious implications in terms of sovereignty,
integrity and security of the country. The reasons for the
order were however, not furnished to her in view of the
provisions of s. 10(5) of the Act. The order was confirmed
on appeal by the Chief Passport Officer.
The High Court took the view that there was no danger in
presenti from respondent's activities, and quashed the order
on the ground that there was no material for the conclusion
of the Passport Officer that impounding of the passport was
necessary.
In this appeal by Special Leave by the Union of India it
was contended that there was information before the Regional
Passport Officer justifying the order and it was not open to
the Court to assess the sufficiency or otherwise of such
information. On behalf of the respondent it was urged that
there was no material whatsoever to indicate that the re-
spondent was involved in any sort of political or prejudi-
cial activity and that her passport had been impounded
merely because she was the wife of a protagonist of Khalis-
tan.
Allowing the Appeal, the Court,
HELD: 1.1 The order impounding the respondent's passport was
based on relevant material. The fact that she-was the wife
of an extremist leader residing abroad was not an irrelevant
circumstance though singly, by itself it may appear innocu-
ous. That circumstance has to be viewed in conjunction with
other circumstances. The respondent had chosen to visit
Punjab in troubled days and to call on Sant
1081
Bhindranwala, the acknowledged leader of the militant Sikh
movement, in the company of Balbir Singh Sandhu, self-styled
Secretary-General of the National Council of Khalistan. She
was reported to have come to India in the month of October,
1983 to see her mother who was said to be seriously iII. She
tried to leave India on August 18, 1984. The authorities
were, therefore, justified in suspecting the respondent of
being an emissary or a contact person between the extremist
leader stationed abroad and the sikh militants in India.
[1084C-G]
1.2 If in the circumstances then existing and the mate-
rial available with him the Regional Passport Officer though
that the respondent was likely to indulge in a manner detri-
mental to the sovereignty, integrity and the security of
India, it could not be said that he was acting on no materi-
al. [1084G]
2. The High Court was wrong in assuming that the Bhin-
dranwala factor was extinguished with his death. Movements
don't die with individuals. It could not also be said that
there was no present danger on the date of the impounding of
the passport because that was two months after Bhimiranwa-
la's death. There was no justification for treating such a
recent event as an incident of the ancient past. [1084G-H;
1085A-B]
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR, 621, referred
to
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.2793 of
1985.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.5. 1985 of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.236 of 1985
B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, C.V. Subba Rao
and P. Parmeshwaran for Appellants.
Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The passport of Smt. Charanjit Kaur
wife of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan was impounded by the Re-
gional Passport Officer, Delhi by an order dated August 18,
1984. The reasons for the order were not furnished to her
“in view of the grave nature of her activities and serious
implications in terms of sovereignty
1082
and integrity of India and the security of India” in terms
of Section 10(5) of the Passport Act, 1967. The reasons are
however, to be found in the note made by the Regional Pass-
port Officer on the same day. Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the note
are as follows:
“Ref. Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi
letter No. V.I/405/1/102/84 dated 18.8. 1984
relating to the activities of Smt. Charanjit
Kaur wife of Shri Jagjit Singh Chauhan. Smt.
Chauhan is reported to have links with Sikh
extremists and may engage in activities detri-
mental to the security of India. She is also
planning to leave India shortly.
2. Reported activities detrimental to the
security of India, attract the provision of
Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967.
3. Due to the seriousness of the case and the
likelihood of the subject trying to leave the
country, in public interest, it is not consid-
ered necessary to issue a separate show cause
notice. The same may, however, be incorporated
in the impounding order. The right of the
subject for appeal and the procedure in this
regard may please also be explained in the
impounding order, as per the Rules.”
The basis of the communication from the Ministry of External
Affair to the Regional Passport Officer was the information
furnished by the Intelligence Bureau in two letters to the
following effect:
“According to a report Charanjit Kaur wife of
Dr. Jagjit Singh-Chauhan self-styled President
of the so-called National Council of Khalistan
who is now resident in U.K. is planning to
leave India in the next few days. We are not
aware of her passport particulars. There are
reasons to believe that she has links with
Sikh extremists and may engage in activities
detrimental to the security of the country and
therefore she should not be allowed to leave
India. It is requested that the MHA may con-
sider the advisability of impounding her
passport.” and,
2. Our enquiries reveal that Smt. Charanjit
Kaur is presently residing at Tanda and Nagal
Khunga both in Hoshiarpur District.
1083
3. Smt. Charanjit Kaur has not come to notice
participating openly in political activities.
She is however the wife of Dr. Jagjit Singh
Chauhan President of the so-called National
Council of Khalistan based in U.K. who has
also been engaged in sustained anti-India and
secessionist activities. According to the
disclosures made by ….. Smt. Charanjit
Kaur and Balbir Singh Sandhu self-styled
Secretary General of the National Council of
Khalistan used to hold frequent meetings in
camera with Bhindrawala and his P.A. and they
served as an important channel between Bhin-
drawala and his foreign links.
4. Smt. Chanranjit Kaur has also been person-
ally pursuing the court cases of her husband
and one Ram Singh Tihara a Khalistan Protago-
nist in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.”
The order of the Regional Passport Officer which was
later confirmed on appeal by the Chief Passport Officer was
quashed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the
ground that there was no material for the conclusion of the
Regional Passport Officer that impounding of the passport
was necessary in the interests of the security and integrity
of India and the security of India. The High Court expressed
the view that the “Bhindrawala factor” stood eliminated long
before the making of the order since Bhindrawala died on
6.6.84 whereas the order impounding the passport was made on
18.8.84. According to the High Court it could not therefore
be said that there was any danger in presenti from the
activities of Smt. Charanjit Kaur. The High Court appeared
to think that the order was made for the sole reason that
Smt. Charanjit Kaur happened to be the wife of Dr. Jagjit
Singh Chauhan. The Union of India has preferred this appeal
by special leave to this Court under Art. 136 of the Consti-
tution. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted
that there was information before the Regional Passport
Officer about the activities of the respondent which was
prejudicial to the interests of the sovereignty and integri-
ty of India and the security of India and that it was not
open to the Court to assess the sufficiency or otherwise of
the such information. He relied on the observations of this
Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 S.C.R.
621 where it was observed:
“In matters such as, grant, suspension, im-
pounding or cancellation of passports, the
possible dealing of an individual with nation-
als and authorities of other States have to
1084
be considered. The contemplated or possible
activities abroad of the individual may have
to be taken into account. There may be ques-
tions of national safety and welfare which
transcend the importance of the individual’s
inherent right to go where he or she pleases
to go …. There can be no doubt whatsoever
that the orders under Section 10(3) must be
based upon some material even if that material
consists, in some cases, of reasonable suspi-
cion arising from certain credible assertions
made by reliable individuals …”
The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other
hand, urged that there was no material whatsoever to indi-
cate that the respondent was involved in any sort of politi-
cal or prejudicial activity and the High Court was right in
holding that her passport had been impounded merely because
she was the wife of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan.
We think that the appeal has to be accepted. The fact
that the respondent is the wife of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan,
‘Self-styled President of the so-called National Council of
Khalistan’ is not an irrelevant circumstance though singly,
by itself, it may appear innocuous. The circumstance has to
be viewed in conjunction with other circumstances. Here, we
have the circumstance that the wife of the ‘Selfstyled
President of the so-called Khalistan’ who is stationed in
England has chosen to pay a visit to Punjab in these trou-
bled days and to call on Bhindrawala the acknowledged leader
of the militant Sikh movement in the company of Balbir Singh
Sandhu, ‘Self-styled Secretary General of the National
Council of Khalistan. She was reported to have come to India
in the month of October, 1983, to see her mother who was
said to be seriously ill. She tried to leave India on
18.8.1984. Her mother died in the month of November, 1985.
In the context of the circumstance then existing and the
materials available with the authorities, it can surely be
said that the authorities were justified in suspecting her
of being an emissary or a contact person between Dr. Chauhan
and the Sikh militants in India. If the Regional Passport
Officer though that she was likely to indulge in a manner
detrimental to the sovereignty and integrity of India and
the security of India, it cannot be said that he was acting
on no material. We do not agree with the High Court that the
‘Bhindranwala factor’ was extinguished with the death of
Bhindranwala. We do not understand the High Court’s view at
all. The movement which Bhindranwala represented has not
died. Movements don’t die with individuals. Nor do we under-
stand the
1085
view of the High Court that there was no present danger on
the date of impounding of the passport because that was two
months after Bhindranwala’s death. We do not see any justi-
fication for treating such a recent event as an incident of
the ancient past. We are satisfied that the order impounding
the respondent’s passport is based on relevant material and
not merely on the sole circumstance that she is the wife of
Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan. The appeal is allowed, the judg-
ment of the High Court is set aside and the Writ Petition is
dismissed. We wish to add that it is always open to the
authorities concerned to review the impounding order if they
so desire. We are adding this sentence because Sri Harder
Singh argued that impounding the passport meant a permanent
deprivation of the passport.
Before we part with the case we must express our strong
disapproval of the wholesale condemnation of the Medical
Profession in India by the High Court, implicit in the
following observation made by the High Court: “I may quote
an actual case to highlight the ignorance of Indian Doctors
about the latest techniques practised abroad”. The occasion
for making the remark was the argument advanced on behalf of
the respondent that he wanted to go back to England for
better treatment of her ailments. We consider that the
remark was totally uncalled for. The High Court also ap-
peared to suggest that the Government of India should permit
the respondent Charanjit Kaur to go back to England and in
support of the suggestion relied on the appeal of Late Prime
Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi to General Zia to permit Begum
Bhutto to go abroad for treatment. The reference to the
appeal of Mrs. Gandhi to General Zia, in the context of the
facts of this case, appears to us to be entirely irrelevant.
P.S.S. Appeal
allowed.
1086