Introduction:

In the case titled Sajad Ahmad Khan v. Union of India & Ors., adjudicated by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, the petitioner—a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer—challenged the impounding of his passport by the Regional Passport Officer (RPO), Srinagar, and the refusal of release by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases), Jammu. Justice Sindhu Sharma, who presided over the case, emphasised that the mere registration of an FIR does not amount to pending criminal proceedings under clause (e) of Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. The petitioner had cooperated with an investigation related to the alleged irregular issuance of arms licenses in Jammu & Kashmir and approached the Court seeking the release of his passport to perform a religious pilgrimage. The impugned order, passed without any formal notice or chargesheet, was held to be legally unsustainable and in violation of fundamental constitutional rights.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

Mr. Areeb Javed Kawoosa, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client’s passport had been wrongfully impounded and kept in custody for over three years, despite no chargesheet being filed against him. He highlighted that the petitioner had extended full cooperation with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the arms licensing investigation and that there was no longer any requirement for his passport in the course of the investigation. The impounding, it was argued, infringed the petitioner’s fundamental right to travel abroad, which is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner had intended to perform Hajj or Umrah, and the denial of a passport amounted to unjust and disproportionate interference in his religious and personal liberty. Furthermore, the petitioner was not charged with any offence prejudicial to the sovereignty or integrity of India, nor was any material presented that proved he posed a security threat. The petitioner also claimed that no show-cause notice was issued, and the decision was made in complete breach of principles of natural justice and statutory obligations under Section 10(5) of the Passports Act.

Arguments of the Respondents:

Mr. Vishal Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, and Ms. Mrinal, representing the respondents, justified the impounding order, asserting that the petitioner was implicated in two FIRs involving a wide-ranging conspiracy for illegal issuance of arms licenses during his tenure as Deputy Commissioner, Poonch. The respondents submitted that the CBI had already sought sanction for prosecution as of October 30, 2023, and that investigations revealed the petitioner’s alleged collusion with gun dealers. They emphasised that releasing the passport at this stage posed the risk of the petitioner evading judicial proceedings that could be initiated upon filing of a chargesheet. They defended the invocation of Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act on grounds of national security and public interest and suggested that the seriousness of the allegations justified precautionary measures. The respondents contended that even though no chargesheet had been filed, the investigation’s gravity necessitated withholding of travel privileges.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Sindhu Sharma undertook a detailed examination of statutory provisions and constitutional jurisprudence to determine the legality of the impounding order. She referred to key Supreme Court judgments such as Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, which established that the right to travel abroad is a protected aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that this right could not be curtailed except through a procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable. The bench found that no such procedure had been followed in the instant case.

Referring specifically to Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, the Court clarified that “proceedings” before a criminal court begin only when a chargesheet is filed and the court takes cognisance of the offence. The Court noted that the CBI had merely registered an FIR and had not filed any chargesheet or initiated proceedings before a court. Therefore, the use of Section 10(3)(e) was legally untenable. Furthermore, the Court was critical of the RPO’s invocation of Section 10(3)(c), which relates to situations where issuing or retaining a passport poses a threat to the security of India. The Court observed that no evidence was presented to support the claim that the petitioner posed any such threat.

Justice Sharma emphasised that fundamental rights, including the right to travel abroad, cannot be curtailed without adequate legal justification and procedural safeguards. The Court found that the RPO had failed to issue a show-cause notice as required under Section 10(5) and instead issued a suspension email citing vague and unsubstantiated threats to national security. Such a step, the Court stated, is violative of the principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard). It held that the impugned action was arbitrary and infringed the petitioner’s constitutional and legal rights.

Quoting judgments such as Venkatesh Kandasamy v. Union of India and Manish Kumar Mittal v. Chief Passport Officer, the Court reaffirmed that pending proceedings under Section 10(3)(e) must be read in the context of a cognizable court action, and not a mere police investigation. The Court was also deeply critical of the administrative arbitrariness and lack of transparency exhibited by the authorities.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impounding order. Justice Sindhu Sharma directed the RPO to either release the passport or issue a fresh one upon completion of formalities. The Court made it clear that failure to follow statutory provisions and principles of natural justice cannot justify administrative excesses that infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.