Passport Denial Over Electoral Roll Deletion Raises Constitutional Questions: CPI(M) Leader

CPI(M) Rajya Sabha leader John Brittas has raised concerns over the denial of a passport to a citizen whose name was deleted from the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in West Bengal. In a letter to External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on Monday, Brittas argued that this case extends beyond an individual grievance and poses broader constitutional questions about the administration of the Passports Act, 1967.

The case involves senior journalist and former Telegraph editor Rajagopal Ramadas, who was denied renewal of his passport because his name was removed from the electoral rolls in the ongoing SIR. Ramadas had been issued an Indian passport in 2005 and renewed it in 2015, with no change in his identity, address, parentage, or nationality. The Regional Passport Office cited only one reason: 'Voter list deleted from SIR'.

Brittas contended that if this is the sole basis for refusing renewal, it could set a precedent with nationwide implications for passport administration. He emphasized that while the government has maintained that a passport is not conclusive proof of citizenship, the document still holds significant legal weight as a statutory determination made under a Parliamentary enactment. He argued that this determination cannot be rendered meaningless by a provisional administrative decision under a different law.

Referring to Supreme Court judgments in Satwant Singh Sawhney and Maneka Gandhi, Brittas noted that the right to travel abroad is part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Decisions under the Passports Act must therefore satisfy standards of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of the SIR, reiterated that the Election Commission's exercise is confined to preparing electoral rolls and does not amount to adjudication of citizenship.

'The larger constitutional issue is whether the sovereign assurance represented by an Indian passport shall continue to command the confidence of citizens, foreign governments and the Republic itself, or whether that assurance may thereafter be rendered uncertain by a provisional administrative consequence arising under an entirely different statutory regime,' Brittas wrote.