UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHARANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The passport of Smt. Charanjit Kaur wife of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan was impounded by the Regional 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 and integrity of India and the security of India" in terms of S. 10(5) of the Passports Act, 1967. The reasons are, however, to be found in the note made by the Regional Passport Officer on the same day. Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the note are as follows:

(2.) 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 "Bhindrawale factor" stood eliminated long before the making of the order since Bhindrawale died on 6-6-1984 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 Constitution. 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 integrity 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 SCR 621, where it was observed:

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, urged that there was no material whatsoever to indicate that the respondent was involved in any sort of political 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.