Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ms. Akanksha Amar Naik, is a citizen of India and the daughter of late Amar Naik. After completing her Higher Secondary Education (12th Standard), she aspired to become a pilot and secured admission to the Commercial Pilot Training Programme at Abbotsford Flight Centre Ltd in Canada, with the course commencing in May 2006. She applied to the Regional Passport Office (respondent no.1) for issuance of a passport to travel to Florida for training. However, by a letter dated 14th June 2006, the Regional Passport Office informed her that her case had been 'not recommended' by the Deputy Commissioner of Police SB-II, C.I.D. Mumbai, and therefore it had been decided not to grant passport facilities to her. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the decision as arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court framed the short question whether the impugned decision was in accordance with law and whether the petitioner was entitled to passport facilities. The court noted that the refusal was based solely on a police 'not recommended' report without any reasons being disclosed to the petitioner and without affording her any opportunity of hearing. The court held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 and cannot be denied arbitrarily. The police recommendation is not binding on the passport authority, and the authority must apply its own mind and give reasons for refusal. The impugned decision was quashed and set aside. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application for passport afresh, after giving her an opportunity of hearing, and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within four weeks. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Travel Abroad - Passport Refusal - Natural Justice - The petitioner, a citizen of India, applied for a passport to pursue commercial pilot training in Canada. The Regional Passport Office refused the passport solely on the basis of a police report that her case was 'not recommended' without any reasons or opportunity of hearing. The court held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 and cannot be denied without following principles of natural justice. The police recommendation is not binding and the passport authority must give reasons and hear the applicant before refusal. (Paras 4-8) B) Passports Act, 1967 - Section 5 - Refusal of Passport - Grounds - The court examined Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967 which enumerates grounds for refusal. The police 'not recommended' report without specifying any statutory ground does not justify refusal. The court held that the impugned decision was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Paras 4-8) C) Constitutional Law - Article 14, 19, 21 - Passport Refusal - Opportunity of Hearing - The court held that the petitioner was not given any hearing before the decision to refuse passport was taken. The communication merely stated that her case was 'not recommended' without disclosing any reasons. This violates the principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the application after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned decision by respondent no.1 communicated vide letter dt.14.6.06 to the petitioner by the Regional Passport Office that her case has been 'not recommended' by the Deputy Commissioner of Police SB-II, C.I.D. Mumbai for issue of passport and, therefore, it has been decided not to grant passport facilities to her is in accordance with law and is violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and if so, whether the petitioner is entitled to have passport facilities as applied for by her from respondent no.1?
Final Decision
The impugned decision communicated vide letter dt.14.6.06 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for passport afresh, after giving her an opportunity of hearing, and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21
- Passport cannot be denied without hearing
- Police recommendation is not binding on passport authority
- Natural justice principles apply to passport refusal
- Article 14
- 19
- 21 of Constitution of India
