Delhi HC facilitates Indian Nationals from Manipur to return after 21 years in forced exile

The Delhi High Court recently gave two Indian citizens, the right to come back to their home country after being stranded in foreign land for over 21 years due to illegal denial of passport, procedural lapses and government apathy..Luingam Luithui, a citizen of India from the State of Manipur along with his wife, had to seek help from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) before being able to approach the Delhi High Court to get his and his wife’s passport released from the Indian Government in order to come back to his family and friends..While in Bangkok, the wife’s passport was stolen and even after applying to the Indian Embassy, a duplicate passport was not issued. The Government justified their inaction by saying that Luingam was actively assisting leaders of National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak Swu faction) which had been notified as an unlawful association under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Both Luingam and his wife refuted the allegations..Eventually, the Government, while replying to an earlier writ petition filed by Luingam in the Delhi HC stated that it does not object to issuing a duplicate passport to Luingam’s wife. However, nothing was done inspite of court orders..The petitioners also contended that they were unnecessarily harassed and persecuted by the Thailand Police which created a bona fide apprehension in their minds that a situation was being engineered which would result in their incarceration..Due to their statelessness and helplessness, the petitioners took the only legal recourse available to them which was in public international law and made a representation to the UNHCR. Since UNHCR found them to be well within the meaning of refugees, it relocated them to Canada..In Canada, the Indian High Commission impounded Luingam’s passport without giving him any reasons as to why such action was taken..The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar observed that Section 10 of the Passports Act provides that the passport authority shall record in writing a brief statement of reasons for making such order and furnish a copy of the same to the holder,.“The impounding of passport has therefore, drastic consequences especially, if you are outside the boundary of India. There can be no compromise with statutory compliances for such actions….The violation thereof as in the present case is a complete illegality.” .ASG Sanjay Jain, appearing for Union of India, submitted that that since the petitioners acquired/obtained Canadian passports, they were deemed to have acquired the citizenship of that country..The Court rejected this contention and observed,.“The petitioners have not made any declaration renouncing their Indian Citizenship.. The issue that an act of acquisition of a passport of any other country has ipso facto to be treated as conclusive proof of his having acquired the citizenship of that country, necessarily entails consideration of the issue as to whether such acquisition of passport was also a voluntary act or the person of the citizen of India and was not compelled by any relevant circumstances?”.The Court held that, under the facts and circumstances, the petitioners were compelled by the acts and omissions of the Government to seek protection from the UNHCR which relocated them to Canada and had no option but to seek documents of identity from the country into which they stood relocated, again not of their volition..The Court further stated that the Government was unable to point out even a single voluntary act on the part of the petitioners to renounce or relinquish their Indian citizenship or to acquire Canadian citizenship..While directing that renewed valid passports be given to both Luingam and his wife, the Bench observed,.“To us, it is extremely distressing that two Indian citizens have been constrained to seek refuge from the United Nations Commission for Refugees and thereafter, when deprived of their identities by the respondents, to seek passports from the Canadian authorities. Can these deprivations ever be adequately compensated in any terms? The answer has to be a clear no. More than anything else, they need restoration of their ties with their country and family members.We may note that the present case manifests the failure to abide with the mandate of the statute as well as ignorance about the correct procedure, rights of the citizens as well as the manner in which to deal with them on the part of the official respondents which leads to gross errors having serious repercussions to the persons affected..Therefore, sensitization of their officials on the issues, awareness and training about the basic and relevant laws as well as procedures, both statutorily prescribed or laid down by judicial precedents, deserves the immediate attention of the authorities to ensure that such errors are not repeated.”.Read the judgment below.