The Delhi High Court on Friday stated that the mere action of seeking asylum in another country cannot be a ground for refusing a passport..While passing the verdict, the Court also held that the sovereignty and integrity of the country are robust concepts that can withstand the actions of isolated individuals who may seek political asylum..The observations came in a batch of appeals filed by the Central government against the orders of a Single Judge Bench, which had set aside the order of the Chief Passport Officer denying passport facility to Satnam Singh and two others..Singh had made an application for a passport after his return from Canada on an Emergency Certificate. However, the application was rejected and his name was placed under the Prior Approval Category for five years on the ground that he had requested the Canadian government for political asylum..The question before the Division Bench was whether the activities of the passport applicant, while visiting a country on an Indian passport and then applying for asylum in that country, could be construed as “prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India” as per Section 6(1) (a) of the Passport Act, resulting in justifiable denial of passport..Appearing for the Central government, Standing Counsel Rajesh Gogna argued that the result of bad publicity caused by the behavior of an Indian citizen on foreign soil would inevitably tarnish the image of the country..It was further argued that international perceptions depend on statements made by nationals on foreign soil and may directly affect internal security of a country, render the nation vulnerable, and impact its sovereignty..“It is not only by overt acts of divisive forces that the sovereignty of a Nation is prejudicially undermined but even by innocuous or insidious action by an individual or groups of individual that would ultimately succeed in undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India.” .It was also submitted that the very act of applying for political asylum meant that the applicant vowed allegiance to the laws and Constitution of another country and disowned the laws and Constitution of his country of birth. This directly meant that he displayed overt disloyalty to the country of his birth, i.e. India..The petitioner, represented by Advocate Abhik Kumar, contended that such a broad interpretation of the expression “acts prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity” would mean that any criticism or adverse comment about India or anything done by the Indian authorities or the Executive government can well potentially be construed as an act prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India..The Division Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sanjeev Sachdeva, while dismissing the appeals, observed that,.“…however, condemnable the act of seeking political asylum in a foreign land, ipso facto, (i.e. by itself, and without any other fact showing that the applicant had involved himself or herself with activities of any individual or groups that plot, or had conspired, or are conspiring violence and other such activities to undermine the establishments in India or a section of its people) it cannot possibly be a ground to deny passport under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Act.”.Read Judgment:
The Delhi High Court on Friday stated that the mere action of seeking asylum in another country cannot be a ground for refusing a passport..While passing the verdict, the Court also held that the sovereignty and integrity of the country are robust concepts that can withstand the actions of isolated individuals who may seek political asylum..The observations came in a batch of appeals filed by the Central government against the orders of a Single Judge Bench, which had set aside the order of the Chief Passport Officer denying passport facility to Satnam Singh and two others..Singh had made an application for a passport after his return from Canada on an Emergency Certificate. However, the application was rejected and his name was placed under the Prior Approval Category for five years on the ground that he had requested the Canadian government for political asylum..The question before the Division Bench was whether the activities of the passport applicant, while visiting a country on an Indian passport and then applying for asylum in that country, could be construed as “prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India” as per Section 6(1) (a) of the Passport Act, resulting in justifiable denial of passport..Appearing for the Central government, Standing Counsel Rajesh Gogna argued that the result of bad publicity caused by the behavior of an Indian citizen on foreign soil would inevitably tarnish the image of the country..It was further argued that international perceptions depend on statements made by nationals on foreign soil and may directly affect internal security of a country, render the nation vulnerable, and impact its sovereignty..“It is not only by overt acts of divisive forces that the sovereignty of a Nation is prejudicially undermined but even by innocuous or insidious action by an individual or groups of individual that would ultimately succeed in undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India.” .It was also submitted that the very act of applying for political asylum meant that the applicant vowed allegiance to the laws and Constitution of another country and disowned the laws and Constitution of his country of birth. This directly meant that he displayed overt disloyalty to the country of his birth, i.e. India..The petitioner, represented by Advocate Abhik Kumar, contended that such a broad interpretation of the expression “acts prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity” would mean that any criticism or adverse comment about India or anything done by the Indian authorities or the Executive government can well potentially be construed as an act prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India..The Division Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sanjeev Sachdeva, while dismissing the appeals, observed that,.“…however, condemnable the act of seeking political asylum in a foreign land, ipso facto, (i.e. by itself, and without any other fact showing that the applicant had involved himself or herself with activities of any individual or groups that plot, or had conspired, or are conspiring violence and other such activities to undermine the establishments in India or a section of its people) it cannot possibly be a ground to deny passport under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Act.”.Read Judgment:
