HC pulls up govt for revoking man's passport to pressure him

The Delhi High Court has taken to task the government for revoking the passport of an Indian citizen, who was living in Ukraine, to pressure him to settle a private financial dispute with some students there, saying the action was without authority of law.
The court directed the government to forthwith return the passport of Rohit Goswami, who was running a business abroad, rejecting its contention that the step was taken in public interest.
The order revoking the man's passport was "plainly without authority of law and cannot be sustained", the court said, adding that such action which impinges on a citizen's fundamental rights "has to be justified by overwhelming public good and larger public interest".

According to the Centre's counsel, the passport of Goswami, a doctor by profession, was impounded by the Indian Embassy at Kyiv in Ukraine as he had failed to comply with the directions to return the money taken from some students for exchanging it into local currency.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru said it was the conceded position that the Indian Embassy had taken away the man's passport to put "pressure" on him and the action taken by them was "wholly without authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the (Passport) Act".
"It is clear that the action of the embassy officials - the first secretary and the ambassador - to take away the passport of the petitioner was a blatant abuse of their authority and wholly illegal.

"The petitioner's protest that the first secretary, was blackmailing (used in the sense of coercing) the petitioner is thus, plainly admitted," the court said.

It said the effect of cancelling Goswami's passport would effectively deprive him from carrying on his business which he had established in Ukraine and such an action of revoking his passport seriously curtails his fundamental rights.
"Plainly, such action which impinges on a citizen's fundamental rights, has to be justified by overwhelming public good and larger public interest, to fall within the scope of 'in the interest of general public' as used in section 10(3) (c) of the (Passport) Act," the court said.

It said the decision to cancel the petitioner's passport under the Act cannot be sustained and it hardly served any public interest for the officials at the embassy to act as self appointed dispute adjudicators.
"The decision of revoking the petitioner's passport on account of a dispute relating to a private transaction, can under no circumstances be termed as 'in general public interest'," the court said.
The man had approached the court challenging the decision of the Centre to revoke his passport saying it was done without following the principles of natural justice and authority of law.
His passport was cancelled by a communication of April 25 last year on the ground that he had failed to respond to the show cause notice issued by the ambassador within the extended time as provided to him.

Asked by the court as to under what authority was the petitioner's passport impounded by the embassy, the Centre's counsel contended that the ambassador was attempting to resolve the disputes between Goswami and the students, who had filed a complaint against him.
He said that the passport was revoked in public interest and the said decision could not be faulted.