Hyderabad: The Telangana high court recently dismissed a petition filed by a Hyderabad-based journalist seeking renewal of his passport, holding that renewal is not an automatic process and is governed by rules and regulations.The petitioner, a 52-year-old resident of Bahadurpura who has worked for a daily and a TV channel and is currently running a news website and social media handles, sought renewal of his passport after it was revoked a year after being renewed in 2018 for a 10-year period. His passport was first issued in 1998.The passport was revoked following a report from the state intelligence department detailing his alleged involvement in a 1998 criminal case in which a pistol, 30 rounds of live ammunition and a large quantity of potassium chloride mixture used for making explosives were seized from him. He was also alleged to have been associated with ISI operatives.Although, he was acquitted in the case, an intelligence report submitted to the passport authorities in the form of a confidential letter stated that he was involved in activities inciting communal tensions between two communities during 2018 and 2019. The report further stated that a personal file was maintained at the special branch, Shamshabad zone, to keep his alleged unlawful activities under surveillance. Subsequently, the intelligence department recommended to the passport authorities that a passport should not be issued to him, stating that his activities “are prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India”.The petitioner claimed that his passport was revoked without giving him an opportunity to be heard and that the action was against the basic principles of natural justice. He urged the court to suspend the letter through which the police communicated the reasons for recommending revocation of his passport.Disposing of the petition, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka held that the petitioner, having not challenged the original orders revoking his passport and instead challenging a subsequent communication, could not expect any relief from the court. Justice Bheemapaka noted that although the petitioner filed a rejoinder in his defence, apart from bald denials, there was no specific denial regarding concealment of the pistol with 30 rounds of ammunition, possession of potassium chloride, or his alleged connections with the ISI. Moreover, the judge observed that when a petitioner’s activities are under surveillance, courts must exercise greater caution, particularly when it is seriously alleged that such activities could affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. The court therefore found no justification to grant the relief sought.“When public interest, national security, impracticality and confidentiality are involved, the question of applying the principles of natural justice does not arise,” the judge concluded.
