The main legal point established in the judgment is that seeking political asylum, without evidence of involvement in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, cannot justify the denial of a passport under the Passport Act, 1967.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. Common issues are involved in these three appeals. The question that confronts this Court in LPA No. 13/2016, which is the lead case in this batch, is whether the activities of the passport applicant, while visiting a foreign country on an Indian passport and then applying in that country for asylum, can be construed as “prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India” resulting in justifiable refusal to denial of passport to such individual on that ground under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Passport Act, 1967 (hereafter “the Act”). The decision by the Passport Office to deny passport was held to be illegal, by the learned Single Judge, the Union is consequently in appeal. The other two appeals involve identical facts.

2. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1044/2014 (Satnam Singh, hereafter “Satnam”) returned to India on an Emergency Certificate dated 08.04.2013 issued from the Consulate General of India, Vancouver (Canada). On his return, the petitioner applied for a passport on 08.07.2013, at Passport Office, Jalandhar. The Regional Passport Officer at Jalandhar rejected the said application and placed Satnam's name under the Prior Approval Category (hereafter ‘PAC’) for a period of five years from the date of his return to India on the ground that the petitioner had requested the Government of Canada for political asylum. The request was, however, rejected by the Canadian Government. By an order dated 24.07.2014, the appeal filed by Satnam under Section 11 of the Act, impugning the order of the Regional Passport Officer, was also dismissed by the Chief Passport Officer. The said order dated 24.07.2014 was then challenged by Satnam in W.P. (C) No. 1044/2015, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The Union challenged the order dated 11.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Satnam's case whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 24.07.2014, which denied the passport facility to Satnam for 5 years.

3. The learned Single Judge relied upon order dated 17.12.2014 passed by a coordinate bench in W.P. (C) No. 4574/14 titled Kulvir Singh vs. UOI and Another, 2014 SCC Online Del. 7206 (“Kulvir”) whereby the passport facility was restored to Kulvir under similar circumstances, since an appeal against that decision was already pending before a Division Bench (DB) of this Court in Union of India vs. Inderdeep Chumber. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal, being LPA No. 210/2015, referring to the judgment passed in Kulvir (supra) as the issue was rendered infructuous. The question of law was nevertheless kept open.

4. Similarly, in Varinder Singh's petition (W.P. (C) No. 11882/2015) hereafter called “Varinder”) the learned Single Judge followed the reasoning in Kulvir (supra) and quashed the decision of the authorities to keep the application under PAC. The Union has preferred an appeal, LPA No. 159/16 against that decision, dated 13.01.2016. In Amardeep Singh's case (W.P. (C) No. 6254/2105) allowed on 08.01.2016), by following the decision in Kulvir (supra), the Union has preferred its appeal, LPA No. 141/2016.

5. The Union argues that the reasoning in the impugned orders is erroneous. It urges that the learned Single Judge, in each of these cases, fell into error in following the reasoning in Kulvir (supra). That judgment, according to the appellant Union was decided on erroneous and flawed premises.

6. The Union of India in its appeal argues that the impugned judgments overlook that the result of bad publicity resulting in the behavior of an Indian citizen in foreign soil would inevitably tarnish its image. Learned counsel urges that international perceptions depend on statements made by nationals in foreign soil and may directly affect internal security of a country which dwells upon its integrity and renders the Nation vulnerable and impacts its sovereignty. It is not only by overt acts of divisive forces that the sovereignty of a Nation is prejudicially undermined but e