The Telangana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by journalist Akram Ali Mohammed challenging the revocation of his passport by the Regional Passport Office (RPO), holding that the authorities were justified in acting on security related inputs.
Akram Ali, a Hyderabad based journalist who runs a digital news platform, had approached the court after his passport was revoked in October 2019. The passport, issued in July 2018 and valid until 2028, was cancelled following an adverse report submitted by security agencies.
Authorities Stand
According to the passport authorities, the decision was taken based on confidential intelligence inputs which indicated that the petitioner could engage in activities considered prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India. The police report placed before the court also referred to past cases and other inputs collected during verification.
The authorities maintained that disclosure of full details was not possible as it could compromise sensitive sources and ongoing assessments.
Petitioner’s Argument
Akram Ali argued that the action was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice, as he was not provided with detailed reasons for the revocation. He submitted that an earlier criminal case against him had ended in acquittal and should not be relied upon. He further stated that cancellation of his passport affected his professional and personal rights.
Court’s Findings
The High Court observed that issuance or renewal of a passport is not an automatic right and can be restricted in the interest of national security. The court held that when security agencies provide adverse inputs, the passport authority is empowered to take action under the Passport Act.
The court also noted that in matters involving national security, the government is not required to disclose all information if such disclosure could affect public interest or compromise intelligence sources.
Conclusion
Dismissing the plea, the court upheld the decision of the passport authorities and ruled that the revocation was legally valid in the present case. The judgment reiterates that national security considerations can outweigh an individual’s right to travel abroad when credible inputs are placed before the authorities.
