The revocation of a passport on grounds of national security, without prior notice or hearing, has been upheld by the High Court of Telangana where intelligence inputs indicate potential threats to India’s sovereignty. This judgment clarifies the limits of procedural fairness in matters involving sensitive state interests.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mr. Akram Ali Mohammed, a journalist and owner of the digital platform 'Azad Reporter.com', held a valid Indian passport (No. S1975897) issued on 04-07-2018. The Regional Passport Officer revoked this passport on 25-10-2019, citing a secret intelligence report from the Telangana State Intelligence Department. The report alleged that the petitioner was likely to engage in activities abroad prejudicial to India’s sovereignty and integrity, including connections with ISI-linked individuals and possession of illegal arms.
Procedural History
- 2017: Petitioner undertook Umrah pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia using his previous passport (H0088478).
- 2018: Applied for and received renewed passport (S1975897) valid until 03-07-2028.
- 17-10-2019: Intelligence Department sent confidential letter to Passport Authority recommending refusal of travel documents under Section 5(2)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967.
- 25-10-2019: Passport revoked without prior notice or opportunity to be heard.
- 12-11-2019: Petitioner wrote seeking reasons for revocation.
- 09-12-2019: Respondent issued a reply citing intelligence inputs but did not restore the passport.
- 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 challenging the revocation as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) declaration that the revocation was illegal and arbitrary; (2) direction to restore his passport pending disposal; and (3) compliance with principles of natural justice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 5(2)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 permits revocation of a passport without affording the holder an opportunity to be heard, when the grounds involve national security and intelligence inputs protected by confidentiality.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Hassan Ali Khan v. Regional Passport Officer and Harpat Singh v. Union of India to argue that natural justice is a fundamental component of Article 21 and cannot be bypassed even in national security cases. He contended that the revocation was based on vague, unverified allegations and that the failure to disclose the intelligence report or provide a hearing rendered the order void. He emphasized that his acquittal in Criminal Case No. 155/1998 and absence of any pending charges negated the basis for suspicion.
For the Respondent
The Central and State Governments argued that Section 5(2)(c) explicitly empowers the Passport Authority to refuse or revoke a passport if there is a reasonable apprehension that the holder may engage in activities prejudicial to India’s sovereignty or integrity. They cited the confidential nature of intelligence inputs and the practical impossibility of disclosing such information without compromising national security. They relied on the principle that public interest overrides procedural formalities in matters of state security, citing Savitri Sharma v. Union of India.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the balance between individual rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 and the state’s duty to protect national security. It acknowledged that while natural justice is a constitutional norm, it is not absolute. The Court held that exceptions exist where disclosure would defeat the very purpose of the action - particularly when intelligence agencies operate under statutory secrecy.
"When public interest, national security and impracticability are involved, the question of applying principles of natural justice does not arise."
The Court distinguished Hassan Ali Khan and other precedents cited by the petitioner, noting that those cases involved administrative decisions based on non-sensitive records, not confidential intelligence assessments. It emphasized that the Intelligence Department’s report, though not disclosed, was not arbitrary - it was grounded in specific allegations: (1) connection with ISI-linked individuals; (2) concealment of a pistol and potassium chloride; and (3) inflammatory broadcasts during religious tensions in Hyderabad.
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s rejoinder contained only bald denials without specific rebuttals to the core allegations - particularly regarding the possession of arms and links to extremist networks. The Court held that the burden of proof in such matters lies with the applicant, and mere assertion of innocence is insufficient when credible intelligence exists.
The Court also clarified that passport issuance and renewal are privileges, not absolute rights, and are governed by statutory rules that explicitly permit refusal on security grounds.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that revocation of a passport under Section 5(2)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, without prior hearing, is lawful when based on credible intelligence indicating threat to national sovereignty. The principles of natural justice do not apply where disclosure would compromise state security.
What This Means For Similar Cases
National Security Overrides Procedural Formalities
- Practitioners must recognize that passport revocations under Section 5(2)(c) are not subject to pre-decisional hearings if grounded in classified intelligence.
- Challenges under Article 226 will fail unless the petitioner can demonstrate mala fide intent or total absence of material supporting the intelligence report.
Denials Without Specific Rebuttal Are Fatal
- In cases involving sensitive allegations, general denials are legally insufficient.
- Petitioners must provide documented rebuttals - e.g., police clearance certificates, court acquittal records, or forensic evidence - to counter specific claims of arms possession or terror links.
Judicial Deference to Intelligence Inputs
-
Courts will not second-guess the credibility or sufficiency of intelligence reports submitted in confidence.
-
The existence of a surveillance file (e.g., ID No. 841PF12018) and prior investigative reports are sufficient to justify non-disclosure and non-hearing.
-
Practitioners should advise clients to proactively maintain clean legal records and avoid public commentary on sensitive religious or political issues.
-
Applications for passport renewal should be accompanied by affidavits affirming non-involvement in activities flagged under Section 5(2)(c).
-
Legal challenges must be framed around procedural irregularities in the intelligence process, not merely the outcome - e.g., whether the report was signed by an authorized officer or based on hearsay.
