http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. CHARANJIT KAUR

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/01/1987

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) KHALID, V. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 1057            1987 SCR  (1)1080  1987 SCC  (1) 671        JT 1987 (1)   195  1987 SCALE  (1)86

ACT:     Passport      Act,     1967:     ss.     10(3)(c)      & 10(5)--Passport--Impoundment  of for activities  detrimental to  sovereignty, integrity and security of  India--Relevancy of material.

HEADNOTE:     The  respondent,  wife  of a  protagonist  of  Khalistan residing abroad, during her visit to India was found meeting extremist  leaders in Punjab. Her passport was impounded  by the  Regional  Passport  Officer under s.  10(3)(c)  of  the Passport Act, 1967 in view of the grave nature of her activ- ities  and  serious implications in  terms  of  sovereignty, integrity  and security of the country. The reasons for  the order  were  however, not furnished to her in  view  of  the provisions  of s. 10(5) of the Act. The order was  confirmed on appeal by the Chief Passport Officer.     The High Court took the view that there was no danger in presenti from respondent’s activities, and quashed the order on the ground that there was no material for the  conclusion of the Passport Officer that impounding of the passport  was necessary.     In this appeal by Special Leave by the Union of India it was contended that there was information before the Regional Passport Officer justifying the order and it was not open to the  Court  to assess the sufficiency or otherwise  of  such information.  On behalf of the respondent it was urged  that there  was no material whatsoever to indicate that  the  re- spondent  was involved in any sort of political or  prejudi- cial  activity  and  that her passport  had  been  impounded merely because she was the wife of a protagonist of  Khalis- tan. Allowing the Appeal, the Court, HELD: 1.1 The order impounding the respondent’s passport was based  on relevant material. The fact that she-was the  wife of an extremist leader residing abroad was not an irrelevant circumstance though singly, by itself it may appear  innocu- ous. That circumstance has to be viewed in conjunction  with other  circumstances.  The respondent had  chosen  to  visit Punjab in troubled days and to call on Sant 1081

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Bhindranwala,  the acknowledged leader of the militant  Sikh movement, in the company of Balbir Singh Sandhu, self-styled Secretary-General of the National Council of Khalistan.  She was reported to have come to India in the month of  October, 1983 to see her mother who was said to be seriously iII. She tried  to  leave India on August 18, 1984.  The  authorities were,  therefore, justified in suspecting the respondent  of being an emissary or a contact person between the  extremist leader  stationed  abroad and the sikh militants  in  India. [1084C-G]     1.2 If in the circumstances then existing and the  mate- rial available with him the Regional Passport Officer though that the respondent was likely to indulge in a manner detri- mental  to  the sovereignty, integrity and the  security  of India, it could not be said that he was acting on no materi- al. [1084G]     2.  The High Court was wrong in assuming that the  Bhin- dranwala  factor was extinguished with his death.  Movements don’t  die with individuals. It could not also be said  that there was no present danger on the date of the impounding of the  passport because that was two months after  Bhimiranwa- la’s  death. There was no justification for treating such  a recent  event as an incident of the ancient past.  [1084G-H; 1085A-B] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR, 621, referred to

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  No.2793  of 1985.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 13.5.  1985  of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.236 of 1985     B.  Datta, Additional Solicitor General, C.V. Subba  Rao and P. Parmeshwaran for Appellants. Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The passport of Smt. Charanjit  Kaur wife  of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan was impounded by  the  Re- gional 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 1082 and  integrity of India and the security of India" in  terms of Section 10(5) of the Passport Act, 1967. The reasons  are however, to be found in the note made by the Regional  Pass- port Officer on the same day. Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the  note are as follows:               "Ref. Ministry of External Affairs, New  Delhi               letter  No. V.I/405/1/102/84 dated 18.8.  1984               relating  to the activities of Smt.  Charanjit               Kaur  wife of Shri Jagjit Singh Chauhan.  Smt.               Chauhan  is reported to have links  with  Sikh               extremists and may engage in activities detri-               mental  to the security of India. She is  also               planning to leave India shortly.               2.  Reported  activities  detrimental  to  the               security  of India, attract the  provision  of               Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967.               3. Due to the seriousness of the case and  the               likelihood of the subject trying to leave  the               country, in public interest, it is not consid-               ered necessary to issue a separate show  cause

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             notice. The same may, however, be incorporated               in  the  impounding order. The  right  of  the               subject  for appeal and the procedure in  this               regard  may  please also be explained  in  the               impounding order, as per the Rules." The basis of the communication from the Ministry of External Affair to the Regional Passport Officer was the  information furnished  by the Intelligence Bureau in two letters to  the following effect:               "According to a report Charanjit Kaur wife  of               Dr. Jagjit Singh-Chauhan self-styled President               of the so-called National Council of Khalistan               who  is  now resident in U.K. is  planning  to               leave  India in the next few days. We are  not               aware  of her passport particulars. There  are               reasons  to  believe that she has  links  with               Sikh  extremists and may engage in  activities               detrimental to the security of the country and               therefore  she should not be allowed to  leave               India.  It is requested that the MHA may  con-               sider  the  advisability  of  impounding   her               passport." and,               2.  Our enquiries reveal that  Smt.  Charanjit               Kaur is presently residing at Tanda and  Nagal               Khunga both in Hoshiarpur District.               1083               3. Smt. Charanjit Kaur has not come to  notice               participating openly in political  activities.               She  is however the wife of Dr.  Jagjit  Singh               Chauhan  President of the  so-called  National               Council  of  Khalistan based in U.K.  who  has               also been engaged in sustained anti-India  and               secessionist  activities.  According  to   the               disclosures  made  by  .....   Smt.  Charanjit               Kaur  and  Balbir  Singh  Sandhu   self-styled               Secretary  General of the National Council  of               Khalistan  used to hold frequent  meetings  in               camera with Bhindrawala and his P.A. and  they               served  as an important channel between  Bhin-               drawala and his foreign links.               4. Smt. Chanranjit Kaur has also been  person-               ally  pursuing the court cases of her  husband               and one Ram Singh Tihara a Khalistan  Protago-               nist in the Punjab and Haryana High Court."     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 "Bhindrawala factor" stood eliminated long before  the  making of the order since Bhindrawala  died  on 6.6.84 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 Consti- tution.  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 integri-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

ty  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  S.C.R. 621 where it was observed:               "In  matters such as, grant,  suspension,  im-               pounding  or  cancellation of  passports,  the               possible dealing of an individual with nation-               als and authorities of other States have to               1084               be  considered. The contemplated  or  possible               activities  abroad of the individual may  have               to  be taken into account. There may be  ques-               tions  of  national safety and  welfare  which               transcend  the importance of the  individual’s               inherent  right to go where he or she  pleases               to go  ....  There can be no doubt  whatsoever               that  the orders under Section 10(3)  must  be               based upon some material even if that material               consists, in some cases, of reasonable  suspi-               cion arising from certain credible  assertions               made by reliable individuals ..."     The  learned  counsel for the respondent, on  the  other hand,  urged that there was no material whatsoever to  indi- cate that the respondent was involved in any sort of politi- cal 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.     We  think that the appeal has to be accepted.  The  fact that the respondent is the wife of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan, ’Self-styled President of the so-called National Council  of Khalistan’ is not an irrelevant circumstance though  singly, by itself, it may appear innocuous. The circumstance has  to be viewed in conjunction with other circumstances. Here,  we have  the  circumstance  that the wife  of  the  ’Selfstyled President  of the so-called Khalistan’ who is  stationed  in England  has chosen to pay a visit to Punjab in these  trou- bled days and to call on Bhindrawala the acknowledged leader of the militant Sikh movement in the company of Balbir Singh Sandhu,  ’Self-styled  Secretary  General  of  the  National Council of Khalistan. She was reported to have come to India in  the  month of October, 1983, to see her mother  who  was said  to  be  seriously ill. She tried  to  leave  India  on 18.8.1984.  Her mother died in the month of November,  1985. In  the  context of the circumstance then existing  and  the materials  available with the authorities, it can surely  be said  that the authorities were justified in suspecting  her of being an emissary or a contact person between Dr. Chauhan and  the Sikh militants in India. If the  Regional  Passport Officer  though that she was likely to indulge in  a  manner detrimental  to the sovereignty and integrity of  India  and the security of India, it cannot be said that he was  acting on no material. We do not agree with the High Court that the ’Bhindranwala  factor’  was extinguished with the  death  of Bhindranwala. We do not understand the High Court’s view  at all.  The  movement which Bhindranwala represented  has  not died. Movements don’t die with individuals. Nor do we under- stand the 1085 view  of the High Court that there was no present danger  on the date of impounding of the passport because that was  two months after Bhindranwala’s death. We do not see any  justi- fication for treating such a recent event as an incident  of the ancient past. We are satisfied that the order impounding the respondent’s passport is based on relevant material  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

not merely on the sole circumstance that she is the wife  of Dr.  Jagjit Singh Chauhan. The appeal is allowed, the  judg- ment of the High Court is set aside and the Writ Petition is dismissed.  We  wish to add that it is always  open  to  the authorities concerned to review the impounding order if they so  desire. We are adding this sentence because  Sri  Harder Singh argued that impounding the passport meant a  permanent deprivation of the passport.     Before we part with the case we must express our  strong disapproval  of  the wholesale condemnation of  the  Medical Profession  in  India  by the High Court,  implicit  in  the following  observation made by the High Court: "I may  quote an actual case to highlight the ignorance of Indian  Doctors about the latest techniques practised abroad". The  occasion for making the remark was the argument advanced on behalf of the  respondent  that he wanted to go back  to  England  for better  treatment  of  her ailments. We  consider  that  the remark  was  totally uncalled for. The High Court  also  ap- peared to suggest that the Government of India should permit the  respondent Charanjit Kaur to go back to England and  in support of the suggestion relied on the appeal of Late Prime Minister  Mrs. Indira Gandhi to General Zia to permit  Begum Bhutto  to  go abroad for treatment. The  reference  to  the appeal of Mrs. Gandhi to General Zia, in the context of  the facts of this case, appears to us to be entirely irrelevant. P.S.S.                                                Appeal allowed. 1086