The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Passports Act, 1967, the government has the power to refuse to issue a passport to an applicant who may engage in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, such as seeking political asylum in another country.

RAJAN GUPTA, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with a prayer for quashing of letter/order dated 14th August, 2006 whereby it was communicated to him by the Passport Officer, Jalandhar that a decision had been taken not to issue passport to him for a period of five years from the date of receipt of letter by him. The petitioner has impugned the said decision and has also sought a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to issue a passport to him.

2. The petitioner has stated that he was issued a passport bearing No. R680357 on 23rd December, 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Berlin in Germany and sought a political asylum there. However, the german Government refused political asylum to the petitioner. As a result, he had to travel back on emergency certificate dated 14th november, 2005 and he arrived at New Delhi on 3rd February, 2006. According to the petitioner, he applied for issuance of a duplicate passport on 22nd February, 2006 as he had lost his earlier passport. This request was, however, declined on 14th August, 2006.

3. In reply, the respondents have stated that the petitioner had applied for political asylum in Germany which was declined. According to the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, no foreign country easily grants political asylum to a foreign national, particularly a national of India. By seeking political asylum, the petitioner had tried to obtain refugee status in another country for personal gains. This, according to the respondents, attracts substantial adverse publicity against India. Since the petitioner had already expressed his displeasure/annoyance against the Indian Administration, to a foreign country, he cannot now claim that he owes allegiance to the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. It is due to this reason that it was decided not to issue passport to the petitioner and he was placed on PAC (Prior Approval Category) for five years. The respondents have further placed reliance on Sec.6 (1) (a) of the passports Act, 1967 to contend that the petitioner had been rightly declined issuance of a passport and that the Government was within its power to impose reasonable restriction on right to travel abroad as vested in it by legislation i. e. The Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. While addressing the arguments, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported as satwant Singh Sawhney V/s. D. Ramarathnam, assistant Passport Officer, New delhi and others, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1836, wherein according to the majority view, right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and deprivation of such a right violates articles 21 and 14. The Apex Court also held that since there is no law regulating or depriving a person of such a right to travel abroad, refusal to give passport or withdrawal of one already given, violates Articles 21 and 14. A perusal of the judgment clearly shows that the case before the Apex Court was not a case relating to political asylum. The matter was considered in reference to passport (Entry Into India) Act (34 of 1920)and not the Passports Act, 1967 .

6. However, in a later judgment, reported as Maneka Gandhi V/s. Union of India, (1978)1 Supreme Court Cases 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597, provisions of the Passports Act were considered and following observations were made by Their Lordships :-

" (1) The position which obtained prior to the coming into force of the Passports Act, 1967 was that there was no law regulating the issue of passports for leaving the shores of India and going abroad. The issue of passports was entirely within the discretion of the executive and this discretion was unguided and unchannelled. The Supreme court by a majority in Satwant Singh sawhney V/s. D. Ramarathnam, [ (1967) 3 SCR 525 : AIR 1967 SC 1836] held that the expression "personal liberty" in Article 21 takes in