Reinforcing the value of constitutional protections, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a passport cannot be impounded merely based on the registration of an FIR, without a chargesheet being filed. The Court stated that this act violates the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The case involved retired IAS officer Sajad Ahmad Khan, whose passport was seized during a CBI investigation related to alleged irregularities in arms license issuance across various districts in Jammu & Kashmir between 2012–2016. Although no chargesheet had been filed against him, the Regional Passport Officer (RPO), Srinagar impounded his passport citing a “security threat to India” under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act.
“Mere registration of the FIR by the investigation agency is also no ground for refusal to issue, renew or impound the passport. It is only upon the filing of a chargesheet and the court taking cognizance of the offence that it may be said that a criminal case is actually pending,”
— Justice Sindhu Sharma, J&K High Court
The petitioner had fully cooperated with the investigation and had even made multiple requests for the return of his passport. However, without serving a formal notice or opportunity for hearing as required under Section 10(5) of the Act, the passport was kept in custody for over three years. The CBI had recommended impounding the passport under Section 10(3)(e), applicable only when criminal proceedings are pending before a court.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to Two Men Accused of Reciting Hanuman Chalisa Near Mosque in Meerut
Khan’s counsel, Advocate Areeb Javed Kawoosa, argued that there was no legal ground for denying the passport, especially as his client merely intended to perform the Haj/Umrah pilgrimage. The High Court found merit in this argument and criticized the authorities for not following due process.
“The impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. The respondents have not provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”
— J&K High Court
The Court emphasized the importance of following a fair and reasonable process when curtailing fundamental rights, drawing on Supreme Court rulings such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967).
It was further observed that there was no material evidence presented to justify why the passport was considered a threat to national security. The Court noted that pending proceedings, as referred to under Section 10(3)(e), only begin when a court takes cognizance of an offence—i.e., after the chargesheet is filed, which was not done in this case.
“The power to impound the passport under Section 10 is a serious restriction on the fundamental rights of a citizen, and any such action without sufficient cause or procedural fairness is liable to be struck down,”
— Justice Sindhu Sharma
As a result, the Court set aside both the CBI court’s earlier refusal to release the passport and the RPO’s impounding order. It directed the Regional Passport Officer to either release the original passport or issue a fresh one after completing necessary formalities.
Court Order:
Writ Petition Allowed. The impounding order dated 03.02.2023 is set aside. RPO is directed to take appropriate action to release or re-issue the petitioner’s passport.
For Petitioner: Mr. Areeb Javed Kawoosa, Advocate
For Respondents: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI Ms. Mrinal, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Case Title: Sajad Ahmad Khan Vs Union of India & Ors
