Passport in India: Modern Hindu Persecution
Right to passport is a constitutional Guarantee. Is it being enforced? Denying a passport leads to immediate statelessness.
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.Article 21, Constitution of India: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.”
Article 13 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is explicitly covered by the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution in the Right to Freedom.
Prior to 1967, the passport act was passed and amended by the British government to regulate entry into British India, a valid passport was required for entry of foreign nationals. Indians leaving India was never their concern.
Supreme Court of India in 1967, Satwant Singh Sawhney vs Passport Officer affirmed Article 13(2) of Universal Declaration of Human Rights was protected by Article 21 of the Consitution of India and guarantees Indian citizen with a passport. And Passports Act, 1967 was created for issuing passports to Indian citizens.
Section 10 of the Passports Act deals with revocation and impounding of Passports.
Supreme Court in a landmark judgment, Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978 clamped down on the broad powers given to Passport Authority by the Act in Section 10(3) and Section 10(5). Out of respect to the legislature, it didn’t revoke the act. But diluted those subsections to mere administrative orders. And further empowered citizens to challenge them on the basis of mala fide, ultra vires, violation of natural justice, personal liberty, unreasonableness.
Various courts across India have built on this judgment to guarantee the Right to passport in India especially in case of litigations and criminal cases and procedures. Courts upheld only Passport Authority can merely initiate the procedure to revoke or impound the passport. And passport cannot be denied to Indian citizens by any agency. Police authorities have no jurisdiction to deny the passport.
Courts have on numerous occasions have upheld the right to passport even on the grounds of criminal proceedings against a citizen in court as well as they take an inordinate amount of time in India. Denying the passport would not only be unreasonable but also mala fide. The would lead to a situation of abuse of power and process. And this power of determination doesn’t lie with passport authority but with the courts alone.
If a non-judicial body is given the power to impound passports on the basis of pending criminal proceedings major sections of contributors to Indian society like politicians, civil rights activists, businessmen, artists would be deprived of the right to passport.
Courts in various judgments over 5 decades unequivocally established that the Consitution of India guarantees passport as a citizen right.
Even in high-profile criminal cases like terrorism, police or passports authority did not revoke or impound the passport. Only courts made such a determination. High Court in Chandigarh ruled courts suo-moto cannot initiate proceedings to impound the passport even in matters of bail but only make a determination.
Passport Authority can revoke the passport of ordinary citizens only on the basis of citizenship. In most cases, a passport is the only available proof of citizenship. Since India doesn’t allow dual citizenship if an Indian citizen obtains citizenship of another country it can be revoked. Revoking an Indian Passport is revoking the citizenship of India. Revoking the passport of an Indian citizen would automatically lead to statelessness violating Article 15 of Universal Human Rights
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Following a disinformation campaign by the media, multiple assassination attempts on the Supreme Pontiff of Hinduism (SPH) Sri Nithyananda Paramashivam, and murder attempts on his followers were made on 3rd March 2010 in a coordinated matter in various cities across India via mob-lynching. A case on SPH was filed with trumped-up charges, there was no evidence of a crime, no victim and no witness — there was no prima facie case. The court ruled there were no grounds to arrest SPH in an anticipatory bail application.
On April 15, 2010 Passport Authority citing these fabricated cases issues a show-cause notice to revoke the passport in 7 days while SPH was in a different state conducting a pre-arranged public program. The notice was neither delivered to SPH in person nor was it a reasoned order as required by law (10(5) of the passport act, 1967).
On 21st April 2010, SPH was arrested on the trumped-up charges by police.
On 29th April 2010 while in police custody Passport Authority impounded his passport denying him the right to defend.
After 55 days in illegal police custody, court ruled SPH was arrested on mere suspicion and granted bail, impounding of passport was not a condition for bail.
On 3rd August 2010, SPH approached the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to return his passport. MEA observed and recorded the conditions of the bail. And an order to restore the passport was passed on 8th August 2010.
On 21st April 2011, court relaxed all bail conditions and SPH was free to travel.
On 18th July 2011, High Court of Karnataka ruled there is no reason to impound the passport in the first place and ordered the release His passport.
Between 2012 and 2017, SPH continued to travel out of India frequently and return. And multiple assassination attempts (over 50) on SPH and murder and rape of his followers continue to happen on SPH while in India. Neither was any action taken by the local and state police to protect SPH and his followers nor investigate the crimes against them.
Frequently global travel (VijayYatra) is a required part of job function of SPH — to discharge his religious duties towards humanity. Restricting His ability to travel apart from violating his personal freedom violates the Right to freedom of religion of SPH and Hindus globally.
In 2018 SPH’s appeared twice before the police to process the passport application. Police refused to give clearance in spite of Supreme Court of India order. Application for renewal of passport was put on indefinite hold by police effectively denying the passport.
On December 2018, the media reported that the passport application of SPH was rejected on the same grounds used in 2010 in violation of the Supreme Court orders. Neither Passport Authority nor Police has the authority to deny passport to an Indian citizen. The constitutionality of the right to passports has been well established for over 50 years.
In December 2019 in a press conference MEA spokesperson said:
“We have cancelled his passport and rejected his application for new one.”
and confirmed passport of SPH has been canceled on multiple occasions without a court order. No reason given for the cancellation. The media never questioned the government's illegality till-date.
Inspite of multiple court orders ruling that there was no ground to impound the passport of SPH and directing government to restore his passport. SPH has been made stateless violating Article 15 of Universal Human Rights and multiple articles in Indian Constitution.
Inspite of court protection lawfare against SPH has been successful. Nothing stops it from repeating on other Hindu Gurus.
Courts pass orders but who implements them? Lawfare against Hindu Gurus cannot be stopped by even Supreme Court orders.
