W.P.(C)/210/2018 of SH. PAWAN KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 210/2018

SH. PAWAN KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr Francis Paul, Advocate.versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... RespondentsThrough:Mr Vikram Jetly, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUO R R%05.02.2018

CM No.4352/2018

1.The petitioner has filed the present application, inter alia, praying thatthe petition be allowed in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench ofthis Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Satnam Singh: LPA 13/2016,decided on 12.01.2018.

2.The petitioner impugns an order dated 26.10.2017 (hereafter ‘theimpugned order’), whereby the petitioner was informed that the respondentshad decided not to issue fresh passport to the petitioner for the period of fiveyears from the date of his deportation, that is, upto 07.03.2021.

3.The principal question involved in the present petition is whether theact of the petitioner in applying for asylum in foreign country can beconstrued as “prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India” andjustifying denial of passport under Section 6(1)(a) of the Passport Act, 1967.

4.The petitioner has travelled overseas on an Indian passport (passport

no. F2411345).

5.Admittedly, the petitioner had applied for political asylum inGermany, which was refused and the petitioner travelled back to India on anEmergency Certificate - Certificate No.X0689548 dated 03.03.2016 - issuedat the Embassy of India in Rome, Italy.

6.On returning back to India, the petitioner once again applied for apassport, which has since expired. The said passport facility was denied tothe petitioner by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had“acted against the spirit of the aforesaid declaration.”

7.The declaration referred to in the impugned order was declarationmade by the petitioner in his application for the passport wherein he haddeclared that “I owe allegiance to the sovereignty, unity & integrity of Indiaand have not voluntarily acquired citizenship or travel documents of anyother country. I have not lost, surrendered or been deprived of citizenshipof India. The information given by me in this form and enclosures is trueand I am solely responsible for its accuracy”.

8.Acting against the spirit of declaration is not one of the grounds onwhich passport facilities can be denied to citizen of India.

9.The learned counsel for the respondents states that the passportfacility was denied by the Central Government on the ground that in termsof Section 6(1)(a) of the Act, 1967: “that the applicant may, or is likely to,engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty andintegrity of India.”

10.In view of the above, the only question that falls for consideration ofthis Court is whether the act of the petitioner in applying for asylum in othercountry can be construed as an act prejudicial to the sovereignty and

integrity of India.

11.The said question was considered by this Court in Kulvir Singh v.UOI & Anr.: 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7206 and the Court held that applyingfor an asylum in foreign country cannot be construed as an act “prejudicialto the sovereignty and integrity of India”. Consequently, the passportfacilities could not be denied for that reason.

12.Following the aforesaid decision, this Court had also allowed otherpetitions, namely, W.P.(C) 11882/2015: Varinder Singh v. UOI & Anr;W.P.(C) 6254/2015: Amardip Singh v. Union of India & Anr.; andW.P.(C) 1044/2015: Satnam Singh v. Union of India & Anr. The decisionsrendered in the aforesaid matters were carried in appeal before the DivisionBench of this Court. The Division Bench by judgment dated 12.01.2018rendered in those matters (Union of India & Anr. v. Satnam Singh: LPA13/2016; Union of India & Anr. v. Amardip Singh: LPA 141/2016 andUnion of India & Anr. v. Varinder Singh: LPA 159/2016). The DivisionBench of this Court had affirmed the view as expressed by the Court inKulvir Singh (supra).

13.In view of the above, the present petition and application are allowedand the impugned order dated 26.10.2017 is set aside. The respondents aredirected to process the petitioner’s application for passport in accordancewith law within period of eight weeks from today.

FEBRUARY 05, 2018MK

VIBHU BAKHRU, J