Passport revocation cannot rest on unresolved FEMA summons non-compliance when the special statute has its own adjudicatory route.
Passport revocation under the general public ground cannot rest solely on alleged non-compliance with FEMA summons where FEMA provides its own enforcement and adjudicatory mechanism and no adjudication or penalty order has been passed. The passport authority must also stay within the scope of the show cause notice; reliance on broader FEMA allegations or public sentiment beyond the notice is improper. Because revocation directly restricts travel and impinges constitutional freedoms, such an order must be justified on relevant considerations and be proportionate to the alleged default. The impugned orders were therefore set aside and the passport restored, without expressing any view on the pending FEMA allegations.
Issues: (i) Whether the passport could be revoked under the general public ground merely because the appellant allegedly failed to comply with summons issued in a FEMA investigation, when the statutory scheme under FEMA provided a separate mechanism for dealing with such non-compliance and no adjudication or penalty order had yet been passed. (ii) Whether the revocation order was vitiated because the passport authority relied on extraneous allegations and because the order directly and inevitably curtailed constitutional freedoms.
Issue (i): Whether the passport could be revoked under the general public ground merely because the appellant allegedly failed to comply with summons issued in a FEMA investigation, when the statutory scheme under FEMA provided a separate mechanism for dealing with such non-compliance and no adjudication or penalty order had yet been passed.
Analysis: The powers under FEMA and the connected rules permitted summons for evidence and documents, and also provided a distinct adjudicatory framework for any alleged contravention. The complaint for non-compliance had only triggered the statutory process, and the matter had not culminated in any adjudication or penalty. The passport authority could not treat that unresolved issue as a sufficient basis to revoke the passport under the Passports Act, especially when the alleged default was already subject to proceedings under the special statute.
Conclusion: The revocation could not be justified on this basis and was against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the revocation order was vitiated because the passport authority relied on extraneous allegations and because the order directly and inevitably curtailed constitutional freedoms.
Analysis: The show cause notice was confined to non-compliance with summons, yet the revocation and appellate orders travelled beyond that basis and relied on broader allegations concerning FEMA violations and public sentiment. Those matters were not the subject of the notice and were not for the passport authority to determine. The revocation also prevented the appellant from travelling outside the country, thereby directly affecting freedom of speech and expression and the right to carry on a profession. The order was disproportionate to the alleged default and could not be sustained under the general public ground.
Conclusion: The revocation order was invalid and against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and the passport was restored without expressing any view on the pending FEMA allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: A passport cannot be revoked under the general public clause solely on the basis of alleged non-compliance with investigative summons where the governing statute provides its own enforcement and adjudicatory mechanism, the alleged default has not been finally adjudicated, and the revocation rests on irrelevant considerations while directly impairing constitutional freedoms.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
