In Haryana's Ambala district, police authorities have issued a cautionary statement, signaling their intention to commence procedures aimed at revoking passports and visas belonging to individuals implicated in breaching barricades and instigating violence at the Shambhu and Khanauri borders of Punjab during the recent farmer protests.
Nevertheless, it is imperative to underscore that passports or visas cannot be summarily revoked or impounded without adhering to the due process delineated under the provisions of the Passport Act of 1967.
Joginder Sharma, a former cricketer now serving as a DSP in the Haryana Police, elucidated the surveillance methods employed, including CCTV footage, drone cameras, and videography, to identify individuals involved in breaching barricades or causing disruptions. He emphasized that extensive documentation, including photographs, had been amassed, capturing instances of vandalism and disturbance.
Under the Passport Act of 1967, the passport authority is empowered to impound or annul a passport or travel document under Sections 10A and 10B. These provisions allow for the impoundment of a passport if it is deemed necessary in the interests of India's sovereignty and integrity, national security, friendly relations with foreign nations, or public welfare.
The law delineates various reasons for passport revocation, including concerns about national security, engagement in criminal activities, or the misuse of passports for illicit purposes. However, it is crucial to note that the process of passport revocation entails adherence to legal procedures and safeguards to prevent arbitrary actions.
The legal framework mandates a comprehensive investigation the provision of due notice and an opportunity for individuals to present their case before a competent authority. Moreover, aggrieved individuals have the right to seek judicial review and appeal against passport revocation decisions.
The threat posed by Haryana Police to cancel or revoke the passports of protestors raises pertinent questions regarding the observance of due process and the safeguarding of fundamental rights. Advocates, such as Colin Gonsalves, underscore the significance of the right to travel and possess a passport as a fundamental right under Article 19, questioning whether the actions of the farmers constitute criminal offenses necessitating such drastic measures. He suggests that participation in protests or civil disobedience does not inherently pose a threat to state security and emphasizes the need for confidence in governance mechanisms.
