Telangana High Court Rejects Journalist's Passport Renewal Petition Citing National Security
The Telangana High Court has recently dismissed a petition filed by a Hyderabad-based journalist seeking renewal of his passport. The court emphasized that passport renewal is not an automatic process and is strictly governed by established rules and regulations designed to protect national interests.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a 52-year-old resident of Bahadurpura in Hyderabad, has worked for both a daily newspaper and a television channel. He currently operates a news website and manages several social media handles. His passport was first issued in 1998 and was renewed in 2018 for a standard 10-year period. However, it was revoked just one year later, prompting him to seek renewal through legal channels.
Intelligence Reports and Criminal Allegations
The revocation followed a detailed report from the state intelligence department. This report highlighted the petitioner's alleged involvement in a 1998 criminal case where authorities seized a pistol, 30 rounds of live ammunition, and a significant quantity of potassium chloride mixture—a substance commonly used in making explosives. Although the petitioner was acquitted in this case, the intelligence report raised further serious concerns.
A confidential letter submitted to passport authorities stated that the journalist was involved in activities that incited communal tensions between two communities during 2018 and 2019. The report noted that a personal file was maintained at the special branch in Shamshabad zone to monitor his alleged unlawful activities. Based on these findings, the intelligence department strongly recommended against issuing him a passport, asserting that his activities were "prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India."
Legal Arguments and Court's Observations
The petitioner argued that his passport was revoked without providing him an opportunity to be heard, violating the basic principles of natural justice. He requested the court to suspend the police communication that outlined the reasons for recommending the revocation.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, while disposing of the petition, noted that the petitioner had not challenged the original orders revoking his passport. Instead, he contested a subsequent communication, which limited his grounds for relief. The judge pointed out that although the petitioner filed a rejoinder in his defense, it contained only "bald denials" without specifically addressing key allegations such as concealment of the pistol and ammunition, possession of potassium chloride, or alleged connections with ISI operatives.
Justice Bheemapaka emphasized that when a petitioner's activities are under surveillance and involve serious allegations affecting national security, courts must exercise heightened caution. The court found no justification to grant the relief sought, reinforcing that passport authorities have the discretion to deny renewal based on security assessments.
Court's Final Ruling
In his concluding remarks, Justice Bheemapaka stated, "When public interest, national security, impracticality, and confidentiality are involved, the question of applying the principles of natural justice does not arise." This ruling underscores the judiciary's priority in safeguarding national security over individual claims, especially in matters involving potential threats to India's sovereignty and integrity.
The decision highlights the rigorous scrutiny applied in passport renewal cases, particularly when intelligence reports indicate risks to national security. It serves as a reminder that legal processes in such matters are designed to balance individual rights with the overarching need to protect the country's interests.
