Telangana High Court Upholds Passport Revocation Of Urdu Journalist, Cites Allegations Of Material Against Sovereignity Of India
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an Urdu language journalist challenging a communication issued by the Regional Passport Authority following the revocation of his passport, holding that “renewal of passport is not automatic”, thus taking note of the material relating to activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India that had been placed...
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an Urdu language journalist challenging a communication issued by the Regional Passport Authority following the revocation of his passport, holding that “renewal of passport is not automatic”, thus taking note of the material relating to activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India that had been placed on record.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka refused to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution, observing that in matters involving public interest and national security, there are exceptions to natural principles, and they may not apply.
The petitioner, an Urdu-language journalist associated with newspapers and digital media platforms, has amassed over 1.5 million subscribers. He was originally issued a passport in 2008, which expired in August 2018, and subsequently, on applying for renewal, a new passport was issued to him.
However, on 25.10.2019, the Regional Passport Authority issued a letter requesting the petitioner to submit his passport as the competent authority had decided to revoke it by invoking the proviso to Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, as the petitioner contends, without any explanation or giving him an opportunity to represent himself.
The Regional Passport Authority, the second respondent in the matter, submitted that the revocation was preceded by a secret letter dated 17.10.2019 from the Intelligence Department, State of Telangana stating that the petitioner's application for issuance of passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country may be refused under Clause (C) (2) Section 5 of the Passport Act, 1967. The authority was further informed by the Police, in the letter, that the petitioner “may or is likely to engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India”. It was also submitted to the Passport Authority that a personal file had been opened to keep his “unlawful activities under surveillance.”
In the counter-affidavit, the Commissioner of Police stated that the petitioner had earlier been cited as an accused under various provisions of the IPC, the Arms Act, and the Foreigners Act, though he was subsequently acquitted. It was further alleged that he had concealed a pistol and potassium chloride mixture, and that he had connections with ISI activist Mohammad Saleem Junaid. It was further submitted by the Commissioner that in 2018, upon an issue being raised between Sunni and Shia sects concerning hate speech in the Abubakar Masjid, Hyderabad, the petitioner had broadcast his views in favour of a particular community through his news channel. Moreover, as stated, in 2019, the petitioner allegedly shot a video and made it viral “in order to corrupt the minds of a particular sect of people”. The petitioner, in his rejoinder, denied the allegations.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had not specifically challenged the revocation order dated 25.10.2019 but had sought to set aside a subsequent communication that was in the nature of a clarification. In the absence of a challenge to the revocation order, the Court held that the petitioner “could not expect any orders in his favour”.
The Court recorded that the intelligence authorities had informed the passport authority that the petitioner “may or is likely to engage with anti-national elements or handlers outside India and that his activities were prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India”. It also noted that the petitioner's activities were under surveillance and that there was no specific denial, except “bald denials”, regarding certain allegations made in the counter affidavit, on the part of the petitioner.
“It is to be noted, renewal of passport is not an automatic one and is governed by the rules and regulations. Any travel document issued by the 2nd respondent should be used in a proper manner. When the activities of petitioner are under surveillance by the police, this Court should be careful enough to consider the case of petitioner, that too, when it is seriously alleged that his activities would affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, this Court does not feel any justification in favour of petitioner to grant relief “, the Court held while upholding the revocation.
On the contention that principles of natural justice were violated, the Court held that there are exceptions to those principles. It observed that “when public interest, national security, impracticality or confidentiality are involved, the question of applying principles of natural justice does not arise”.
Consequently, holding that the grant of relief under Article 226 is discretionary, and that no case was made out for interference, the Court dismissed the writ petition, thus upholding the revocation of the passport and related communication.
Case Name: Akram Ali Mohammad v Union of India
Case No. : WP No. 3114 of 2020