Passport restrictions must rest on express statutory grounds; "security of India" was not extended to cover economic security.

Restrictions on the right to travel abroad under the Passports Act must be confined to the Act's express statutory grounds. The phrase "security of India" in Sections 6 and 10 was held not to include "economic security of India", because enlarging it by interpretation would create a new ground for curtailing personal liberty. A passport authority may rely on Customs information, but it must apply independent statutory judgment and verify that the facts fit the Act's grounds before impounding or requiring surrender. Mechanical action on a departmental communication was treated as an unlawful abdication of discretion, and the notices were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "security of India" in Sections 6 and 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 includes "economic security of India"; (ii) Whether the Regional Passport Officer could impound or require surrender of passports merely on the basis of a communication from the Customs Department.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "security of India" in Sections 6 and 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 includes "economic security of India".

Analysis: The right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty and any restriction on that right must be traced strictly to the statutory grounds. The expression "security of India" in Sections 6 and 10 is used without any qualifying adjective, and the Court held that importing the word "economic" would amount to adding a new ground by interpretation. The statutory context, the structure of the Act, and the narrow construction required where a fundamental right is curtailed all pointed against expanding "security" to cover economic security.

Conclusion: No. "Security of India" does not include "economic security of India" for the purposes of Sections 6 and 10 of the Passports Act, 1967.

Issue (ii): Whether the Regional Passport Officer could impound or require surrender of passports merely on the basis of a communication from the Customs Department.

Analysis: The passport authority may act on information received from another department, but it must apply its own mind and ascertain whether the facts alleged fit within the statutory grounds for refusal, variation, impounding, or revocation. A mechanical response to the Customs Department's letter, without demonstrating a fit with the grounds in the Act, amounted to abdication of statutory discretion.

Conclusion: No. The impugned notices could not be sustained because the Regional Passport Officer failed to exercise independent statutory judgment.

Final Conclusion: The passport notices were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed; the petitioners were granted relief against impounding of their passports on the stated ground.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Passports Act, 1967, passport restrictions must fall strictly within the enumerated statutory grounds, and the phrase "security of India" cannot be enlarged by interpretation to include "economic security" unless the statute expressly says so.

---