Inspiration
December 17, 2014
In a case involving the denial of passports, Bhupinder Singh Nijjar and two other petitioners challenged the rejection of their passport applications by the Indian government. The applicants had previously sought political asylum in Austria and Germany, which was denied. As a result, their passport applications were rejected under Section 6(1)(a) of the Passports Act, 1967, citing concerns that they may engage in activities prejudicial to India's sovereignty and integrity.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the act of seeking political asylum does not inherently threaten India's sovereignty. It emphasized that applying for asylum, though potentially damaging to the country's image, does not equate to disloyalty or activities prejudicial to the nation's integrity. The court further noted that denying passports based solely on the asylum applications was an unjustified restriction on the petitioners' fundamental rights to travel abroad.
Consequently, the court set aside the orders denying passports and directed the government to process their applications. This case underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting citizens’ fundamental rights and limiting the arbitrary use of state power in passport denials.
