UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SMT. CHARANJIT KAUR

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1080 · Decided: 20-01-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
SMT. CHARANJIT KAUR 
JANUARY 20, !987 
B 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Passport Act, 1967: ss.10(3)(c) & 10(5)-Passport-lmpound-
~ 
ment of for activities detrimental to sovereignty, integrity and security of 
India-Relevancy of material. 
The respondent, wife or a protagonist of Kbalistan residing 
abroad, during her visit to India was round meeting extremist leaders in 
Punjab. Her passport was impounded by the Regional Passport Officer 
under s.IO(J)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 in view ortbe grave nature of 
her activities and serious implications in terms or sovereignty, integrity 
and security or the country. The reasons for the order were however, 
not furnished to her in view of the provisions or s.10(5) or the Act. The 
order was confirmed on appeal by the Chief Passport Officer. 
The High Court took the view that there was no danger in presenti 
from respondent's activities, and quashed the order on the ground that 
there was no material for the conclusion or the Passport Officer that 
impounding or the passport was necessary. 
In this appeal by Special Leave by the Union of India it was 
contended that there was information before the Regional Passport 
Officer justifying the order and it was not open to the Court to assess 
the sufficiency or otherwise of such information. On behalf of the res-
pondent it was urged that there was no material whatsoever to indicate 
that the respondent was involved in any sort of politica' .ir prejudicial 
activity and that her passport bad been impounded merely because she 
was the wife of a protagonist of Kbalistan. 
Allowing the Appeal, the Court, 
HELD: I. I The order impounding the respondent's passport 
was based on relevant material. The fact that she-was the wife of an 
extremist leader residing abroad was not an irrelevant circumstance 
though singly, by itself it may appe"ar innocuous. That circumstance has 
to be viewed in conjunction with other circumstances. The respondent 
H 
bad chosen to visit Punjab in troubled days aod to call on Sant 
1080 
I
+ 
U.0.1. v. SMT. CHARANJIT KAUR (REDDY, J.I 
1081 
Bhindranwala, the acknowledged leader of the militant Sikh movement, 
in the company of Balbir Singh Sandhu, self-styled Secretary-General 
A 
of the National Council of Khalistan. She was reported to have come to 
India in the month of October, 1983 to see l)er mother who was said to 
be seriously ill. She tried to leave India on August 18, 1984. The 
authorities were, therefore, justified in suspecting the respondent of 
being an emissary or. a contact person between the extremist leader-
8 
stationed abroad and the sikh militants in India. [1084C-G] 
1.2 If in the circumstances then existing and the material avail-
able with him the Regional Passport Officer though that the respondent 
was likely to indulge in a manner detrimental to the sovereignty, 
integrity and the security of India, it could not be said that he was 
acting on no material. [1084G] 
C 
2. The High Court was wrong in assuming that the Bhindranwala 
factor was extinguished with his death. Movements don't die with indi-
viduals. It could not also be said that there was no present danger on the 
date of the impounding of the passport because that was two months 
D 
after Bhindranwala's death. There was no justification for treating 
such a recent event as an incident oftbe ancient past. [1084G-H; 1085A-B] 
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR, 621, referred 
~ 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.2793 
of 1985. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.1985 of the Punjab 
and Haryana H;gh Court in C.W.P. No.236 of 1985 
B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, C.V. Subba Rao and P. 
Parmeshwaran for Appellants. 
Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondent. 
E 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The passport of Smt. Charanjit Kaur 
wife of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan was impounded by the Regional 
Passport Officer, Delhi by an order dated August 18, 1984. The 
reasons for the order were not furnished to her "in view of the grave 
nature of her activities and serious implications in terms of sovereignty 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
1082 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987) 1 S.C.R. 
and integrity of India and the security of India" in terms of Section 
10(5) of the Passport Act, 1967. The reasons are however, to be found 
in the note made by the Regional Passport Officer on the same day. 
Paragraphs 1 to 3

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.