Chinnappa Reddy, J. - (1.) The passport of Smt. Charanjit Kaur wife of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan was impounded by the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi by an order dated August 18, 1984. The reasons for the order were not furnished to her "in view of the grave nature of her activities and serious implications in terms of sovereignty and integrity of India and the security of India" in terms of S. 10(5) of the Passports Act, 1967. The reasons are, however, to be found in the note made by the Regional Passport Officer on the same day. Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the note are as follows:"Ref. Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi letter No. V.I/405/l/102/84 dated 18-8-1984 relating to the activities of Smt. Charanjit Kaur wife of Shri Jagjit Singh Chohan. Smt. Chohan is reported to have links with Sikh extremists and may engage in activities detrimental to the security of India. She is also planning to leave India shortly. 2. Reported activities detrimental to the security of India, attract the provision of S. 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967. 3. Due to the seriousness of the case and the likelihood of the subject trying to leave the country, in public interest, it is not considered necessary to issue a separate show cause notice. The same may, however, be incorporated in the impounding order. The right of, the subject for appeal and the procedure in this regard may please also be explained in the impounding order, as per the Rules." The basis of the communication from the Ministry of External Affairs to the Regional Passport Officer was the information furnished by the Intelligence Bureau in two letters to the following effect: "According to a report Charanjit Kaur wife of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan self-styled President of the so-called National Council of Khalistan who is now resident in U.K. is planning to leave India in the next few days. We are not aware of her passport particulars. There are reasons to believe that she has links with Sikh extremists and may engage in activities detriment to the security of the country and therefore she should not be allowed to leave India. It is requested that the MHA may consider the advisibility of impounding her passport." and, "2. Our enquiries reveal that Smt. Charanjit Kaur is presently residing at Tanda and Nagai Khunga both in Hoshiarpur District. 3. Smt. Charanjit Kaur has not come to notice participating openly in political activities. She is however the wife of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan President of the socalled National Council of Khalistan based in U.K. who has also been engaged in sustained anti-India and seccessionist activities. According to the disclosures made by .......... Smt. Charanjit Kaur and Balbir Singh Sandhu self-styled Secretary General of the National Council of Khalistan used to hold frequent meetings in camera with Bhindrawala and his P.A. and they served as an important channel between Bhindrawala and his foreign links. 4. Smt. Charanjit Kaur has also been personally pursuing the Court cases of her husband and one Ram Singh Tihara a Khalistan protagonist in the Punjab and Haryana High Court."
(2.) The order of the Regional Passport Officer which was later confirmed on appeal by-the Chief Passport Officer was quashed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on. the ground that there was no material for the conclusion of the Regional Passport Officer that impounding of the passport was necessary in the interests of the security and integrity of India and the security of India. The High Court expressed the view that the "Bhindrawale factor" stood eliminated long before the making of the order since Bhindrawale died on 6-6-1984 whereas the order impounding the passport. was made on 18-8-84. According to the High Court it could not therefore be said that there was any danger in presenti from the activities of Smt. Charanjit Kaur. The High Court appeared to think that the order was made for the sole reason that Smt. Charanjit Kaur happened to be the wife of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan. The Union of India has preferred this appeal by special leave to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that there was information before the Regional Passport Officer about the activities of the respondent which was prejudicial to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India and the security of India and that it was not open to the Court to assess the sufficiency or otherwise of the such information. He relied on the observations of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of 'India, (1978) 2 SCR 621, where it was observed: "In matters such as grant, suspension, impounding or cancellation of passports, the possible dealing of an individual with nationals and authorities of other States have to be considered. The contemplated or possible activities abroad of the individual may have to be taken into account. There may be questions of national safety and welfare which transcend the importance of the individual's inherent right to go where he or she pleases to go............There can be no doubt whatsoever that the orders under S. 10(3) must be based upon some material even if that material consists, in some cases, of reasonable suspicion arising from certain credible assertions made by reliable individuals ............"
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, urged that there was no material whatsoever to indicate that the respondent was involved in any sort of political or prejudicial activity and the High Court was right in holding that her passport had been impounded merely because she was the wife of Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan.;