Right of a citizen for issuance of passport.

The petitioner in this application is an advocate of this Court. He is also an elected member of the Madras Legislative Council. On or about 23rd October, 1952, he applied for the issue of a passport to him for travelling to the countries mentioned in the application which included the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and other countries in Europe. On 12th January, 1953, he received a communication from the Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department, enclosing a passport endorsed for the United Kingdom, Egypt, Iran. Iraq, and Afghanistan. On page 7 of his passport, there was a note as follows;

“This passport should not be endorsed for additional countries without prior reference to the office of issue.”

On receipt of this, the petitioner wrote to the Secretary to Government, Home Department, stating that he had applied for a passport to travel to all the countries in Europe including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, as he wanted to consult Ear Specialists in those countries. He sent back the passport for further endorsement. He also protested against the note on page 7 of the passport. On 2nd March, 1953, he received back his passport with a further endorsement for the following countries, namely, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Western Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Eire and Turkey. The petitioner’s request to delete the note made at page 7 of the passport and for an endorsement for the remaining countries in Europe and for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was refused. The petitioner therefore prays that this Court may issue directions or orders or a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, namely, the State of Madras represented by the Home Secretary, to endorse his passport as valid for travelling to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and other countries in Europe in addition to the countries for which an endorsement had already been made and to cancel the observation made at page 7 of his passport.

The petitioner complains (1) that the refusal of an endorsement of the passport to any country is a violation of the fundamental right granted to him under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, and any restrictions on that right must be reasonable and in the interests of the general public, and (2) that the refusal of an endorsement to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and to the Eastern Democracies is mala fide and is a discrimination which is both arbitrary and unjust and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. In support of his complaint, he alleges that the refusal was really due to the fact that he was a member of the Communist Legislature Party in the Madras Legislature and as such consistently opposing the party in power and relies also on the fact that passports endorsed to the said countries had been given to other persons. He states that a passport without any restriction was issued to him on 30th January, 1928, which expired after a period of five years.

The Secretary to Government, Home Department, has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the State, stating that the petitioner had no legal claim to the issue of a passport which was in the nature of the grant of a special facility and it was in the discretion of the Executive to give 01 not to give it. It was denied that the endorsement to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and some other countries was refused to the petitioner because he was a member of the Communist Party. It was further alleged that the petitioner’s request was carefully and closely scrutinised and the decision of the Government was based on public interests and policy. It was submitted that it was not a valid or correct test to take the names of other persons who had been granted passports. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit which does not carry the matter further.

The only statutory provisions relating to passports which were brought to our notice are the Indian Passport