Telangana High Court Denies Journalist's Plea to Restore Revoked Passport
In a significant ruling that underscores the tension between individual rights and national security, the Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Hyderabad-based journalist challenging the revocation of his passport. The court, in its judgment delivered on January 29, 2026, upheld the decision of passport authorities, emphasizing that concerns over sovereignty and integrity of India take precedence.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, an Urdu journalist with extensive experience in major media outlets, has been operating a news website and associated social media channels since 2017, amassing over 1.5 million followers. His passport, initially issued valid until July 2028, was revoked in October 2019 by authorities without prior explanation or an opportunity for representation. This prompted the journalist to approach the high court in 2020, arguing that the action violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Security Allegations and Police Surveillance
The Regional Passport Authority defended its decision, citing a "secret letter" from the Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Department. This letter alleged that the journalist "may or is likely to engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India." Additionally, the Hyderabad City Police Commissioner submitted detailed counter-affidavits, revealing:
- The journalist was an accused in a 1998 case, though acquitted in 2002, with no appeal filed by the state.
- He allegedly had connections with ISI activists, specifically Mohammad Saleem Junaid, and was accused of concealing a pistol with 30 rounds and 1 kg of potassium chloride at his cycle shop godown.
- His activities in 2018 and 2019, including airing views during sectarian tensions and sharing viral videos, were deemed aimed at corrupting public minds.
The court noted that a separate personal file was maintained by the Special Branch at Shamshabad zone to monitor his unlawful activities, and he remained under police surveillance.
Court's Reasoning and Judgment
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, presiding over the case, observed that the petitioner's activities were under active surveillance, warranting caution in considering his plea. The judgment highlighted:
- The petitioner failed to challenge the initial revocation order from October 2019, only seeking to set aside a subsequent clarification from December 2019.
- His rejoinder to the allegations contained "only bald denials" without specific refutations of the serious charges, including weapon concealment and ISI links.
- Principles of natural justice do not apply in cases involving public interest, national security, impracticality, or confidentiality, as passport renewal is not automatic and must adhere to regulations.
The court concluded that the passport authorities acted within their rights by relying on intelligence reports, and no justification existed to grant relief to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed, reinforcing the state's authority to prioritize national security over individual travel rights.
Implications and Broader Context
This ruling sets a precedent in balancing civil liberties with security imperatives, particularly in cases involving alleged anti-national activities. It underscores the judiciary's role in upholding state mechanisms designed to safeguard sovereignty, even when it impacts personal freedoms like the right to travel. The decision also reflects ongoing vigilance by law enforcement agencies in monitoring individuals with suspected links to external threats, as evidenced by the detailed surveillance and intelligence reports presented in court.
