Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Holding that the term ‘security’ in Section 6(1) of the passport Act does not encompass ‘economic security’, the Kerela High Court observed that passport cannot be refused on the ground that it is detrimental to the ’economic’ security of India.
Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu was considering the challenge against the action of Regional Passport Officer (RPO) impounding the passport of three persons. The RPO acted on the Customs Department communication their holding the passport would harm the economic security of the nation.
The bench observed that any provision that affects these fundamental rights needs strict interpretation. The court even noted that Abdul Salam v. National Investigation Agency a full bench of the high court held that the term “security” occurring in Section 15 of the U.A.(P)Act” cannot be stretched by interpretative process to include economic security.”
The court then concluded stating that “the RPO can act on any person’s information, and the custom department suffers no disqualification to notify the RPO. But the information must act independently”. In this particular case the court stated that the Customs Department’s complaint meeting no ground mentioned in these provisions, therefore “security” will not encompass “economic security”.
86540
103860
630
114
59824