Court sets aside RPO notices, Customs complaint not aligned with Passport Act grounds.

The court set aside the Regional Passport Officer's notices in all three writ petitions, ruling that the Customs Department's complaint did not align with the grounds specified in the Passport Act. It was held that "security" under the Act does not encompass "economic security." The RPO was instructed to promptly review the petitioners' requests for passport reissue within three weeks, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) to impound passports based on Customs Department's communication.
2. Whether "security of India" under the Passport Act includes "economic security."
3. Right to travel as a fundamental right and its implications on passport impoundment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority of the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) to impound passports based on Customs Department's communication:
The petitioners argued that the RPO had no authority to issue notices commanding them to surrender their passports, contending that the right to travel is a fundamental right, and the RPO's action, based on the Customs Department's communication, was an abdication of discretion conferred by the Passport Act. The respondents maintained that the RPO acted within his statutory powers under Section 10 of the Passport Act, which allows impounding passports if the holder indulges in activities detrimental to the nation's economic security. The court found that the RPO must act independently upon receiving information and ensure that allegations meet the grounds specified in Sections 6 or 10 of the Passport Act.

2. Whether "security of India" under the Passport Act includes "economic security":
The court examined the statutory provisions of the Passport Act, including Sections 6 and 10, which deal with the refusal to issue or impound passports on grounds related to the security of India. The term "security" was scrutinized in various legal contexts, including definitions from other statutes and international references. The court concluded that "security of India" does not encompass "economic security" within the meaning of the Passport Act. The court emphasized that any provision affecting the fundamental right to travel requires strict interpretation, and interpolation of terms like "economic" before "security" is not permissible.

3. Right to travel as a fundamental right and its implications on passport impoundment:
The court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. Any restriction on this right must follow the procedure established by law. The court noted that the grounds for refusing or impounding a passport are well-defined in the Passport Act, and authorities cannot introduce new grounds beyond the existing provisions. The court highlighted that national security, sovereignty, public order, and public interest must be of a high degree to justify such restrictions.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the RPO's notices in all three writ petitions, stating that the Customs Department's complaint did not meet the grounds specified in the Passport Act. The court held that "security" under the Passport Act does not include "economic security." Consequently, the RPO was directed to consider the petitioners' requests for reissue of passports expeditiously within three weeks. No order on costs was made.

---