Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legal
Opinion
Page 2 of 15
passport or revoke the passport in a given case? Secondly, did the
authorities under the Passports Act act accordingly to law in
revoking the passport of LKM?
The facts relevant to the above queries are not many and are as follows:
On 2.8.2010 the Director of Enforcement (DoE) sent summons to LKM to
appear in person under Section 37 (1) and (3) of FEMA read with Section 13 (1) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908,
stating that an investigation is being conducted against you under the provisions of
the FEMA and whereas in connection with the said investigation you are hereby
summoned to appear before me in person on 10.8.2010 at 11.00 hours to tender
evidence in respect of various agreements executed by BCCI-IPL along with the
documents listed in the schedule below. ..
required, the summons stated that in default of his appearance, LKM will be liable
to action under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. The summons was signed by
the Assistant Director.
On 7.8.2010 LKM sent copies of all the documents required but expressed his
inability to be physically present in India because of serious security concerns.
He stated that there is a threat perception to his life and that he has been advised
to stay outside the country until the said threat perception cease. He, therefore,
asked his personal presence to be excused. He expressed his readiness to furnish
such further information as may be required.
On
24.8.2010
another
summons
was
issued
by
the
Directorate
of
Enforcement again stating that in connection with the said investigation, LKM
Page 3 of 15
should appear before the Assistant Director in person 7.9.2010 for tendering
evidence and producing documents mentioned in the schedule to the said letter.
LKM was warned that in default of his appearance on the said date he will be liable
to action under the aforementioned provisions of law.
On 7.9.2010 LKM sent a reply stating that because of the threat perception
and risk to his life, he is obliged to stay abroad and that it will be open to the
Enforcement authorities to verify the correctness of the threat perception from the
Mumbai police who indeed had provided security to him on the said account. LKM
stated expressly in this letter that while he is unable to be present personally
before the Enforcement Officer, he is prepared to make himself available by video
conferencing whenever required and to answer all questions and submit all
documents required.
On 16.9.2010 the Assistant Director, DoE filed a complaint under Section 16
(3) of FEMA before the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Mumbai Adjudicating
Authority. In this complaint, the Officer stated that in spite of repeated summons,
LKM has failed to appear personally before him and that the threat perception
pleaded by him is not acceptable for the reason that even after receiving a
particular threat letter (dated 23.8.2010 referred to by LKM), LKM was in India and
was participating in the several public and other functions.
It was, therefore,
opined that the failure of LKM to appear personally before the Enforcement
authorities is deliberate and without any valid reasons which means that he has
contravened the provisions of Section 37 of FEMA read with Section 13 (1)_(c) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 and has rendered himself liable to be proceeded against
under the said provisions.
Page 4 of 15
7.9.2010 from LKM, his offer to appear by video linkage was not referred to). On
the basis of the above complaint of the Enforcement Officer, the Deputy Director /
Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice on 20.9.2010 calling upon LKM to
show cause why adjudicating proceedings as contemplated under Section 13 of
FEMA, 1999 should not be held against you for the aforesaid contraventions of
provisions of FEMA, 1999. LKM was asked to appear either in person or through a
legal practitioner / chartered accountant duly authorized by him on the said date.
I am informed that the said adjudication proceedings are still pending.
On 15.10.2010, LKM received a notice from the Regional Passport Office
(signed by Assistant Passport Officer (Policy), Regional Passport Office, Mumbai)
stating that he has been informed by the DoE that on 16.9.2010 a complaint has
been filed against him under Section 13 of FEMA and that a show cause notice
dated 20.9.2010 has also been issued to him for non-compliance of the summons
issued by the DoE. Accordingly LKM was called upon to explain as to why action
under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 should not be initiated against
you.
The notice further stated If you wish you ,may appear before Assistant
Passport Officer (Policy) to present your case in person within 15 days from the
date of issue of this letter along with passport bearing No. . . He was informed
that if no reply is received within the stipulated period, necessary action will be
initiated against him under the Passports Act, 1867. Then followed a good amount
of correspondence between Wadia Ghandy and Co, Advocates & Solicitors acting for
LKM and the Assistant Passport Officer (Policy) with regard to supply of documents,
compliance with principles of natural justice and so on which it is not necessary to
refer to in any detail. Suffice it to say that in one of his letters dated 1.11.2010
Page 5 of 15
sent by the Assistant Passport Officer, he set out the gist of letters received from
DoE wherein a request was made by the DoE authorities to Assistant Passport
Officer to impound the passport issued to LKM.
On 3.3.2011 the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai passed an elaborate
order, after giving personal hearing to the advocates for LKM, whereunder he held
that it is in the interests of game of cricket and the public in general that the case
is properly investigated for which the interrogation of Sri Lalit K Mode is required.
He then ordered the revocation of the passport issued to LKM under Section
10(3)(c) f the Passports Act, 1967 in the interests of general public.
The appeal preferred by LKM before the Chief Passport Officer, New Delhi
was dismissed on 31.10.2011. The said dismissal is based upon the finding that in
these circumstances his refusal to make himself available in India for personal
interrogation by the investigating authorities on the alleged lack of adequate
protection in India can only be construed as an action intended to avoid the process
of law and non-compliance of a legal process. That the alternative procedure for
his examination through video conferencing, questionnaires, interrogatories, etc.,
was considered by the concerned authorities but it was found that no meaningful
investigation was possible except by his examination in person since the appellant
is required to be confronted with a number of documents and his evidence is
required to be recorded on many issues.
authorities is said to have been recorded.) It was also noted that the modality of
interrogation in such cases has to be decided primarily by the investigating agency
and the individual conveniences need not take precedence while arriving at a
decision.
Page 6 of 15
appellant in India by the Enforcement Directorate is considered justified.
The
Page 7 of 15
enforcement of the orders of the adjudicating authority. The stage of investigation
is governed by Section 37 which reads as follows:
37. (1) The Director of Enforcement and other officers of Enforcement, not
below the rank of an Assistant Director, shall take up for investigation the
contravention referred to in section 13.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Central
Government may also, by notification, authorize any officer or class of officers
in the Central Government, State Government or the Reserve Bank, not
below the rank of an Under Secretary to the Government of India to
investigate any contravention referred to in section 13.
(3) The officers referred to in sub-section (1) shall exercise the like
powers which are conferred on income-tax authorities under the Income-tax
Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and shall exercise such powers, subject to such
limitations laid down under that Act.
Indeed it is only Section 14 (2) which provides for arrest and detention in civil
prison of a defaulter who fails to implement and pay the penalties imposed on him
under the provisions of the Act; this arrest and detention is designed only to make
him pay up the penalty.
Page 8 of 15
conferencing also which offer has been repeatedly made by LKM. Of course there is
no room for interrogation as understood in the Police vocabulary but no such
interrogation is contemplated by FEMA and the use of the said word by the
passport authorities is uncalled for.
submitted all the documents which are called for from him. It is not the complaint
of either the Enforcement authorities or the Passport authorities that LKM has failed
to produce any documents.
context of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which requires that all
evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceedings shall be taken in the
presence of the accused or when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the
present of his pleader.
examine a particular witness who was abroad through video conferencing which
was allowed by the trial judge but set aside by the High Court. When the matter
reached the Supreme Court, it held:
20. Recording of evidence by video-conferencing also satisfies the object of
providing, in Section 273, that evidence be recorded in the presence of the
accused. ..
Page 9 of 15
per procedure established by law .
greater force to the present proceedings which are not criminal proceedings but
purely civil proceedings directed against the assets, properties and monies and not
against the person as such.
contention of the learned counsel for LKM that there was no such power in the
Enforcement authorities. But even if we assume for the sake of argument that the
DoE authorities do have the power to enforce the attendance of the person against
whom proceedings are taken under the Act, two further questions arise viz.,
Page 10 of 15
(a) if the Enforcement authorities themselves have such a power then they
should exercise that power instead of calling upon the passport authorities to
impound the passport of LKM with a view to compel him to present himself
before the Enforcement authorities.
under Sections 13 and 37 read with Section 13 (1) of the Income-tax Act and
Sections 30 and 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not available which are
available only at the stage of investigation. As stated above, only after an
order of penalty is passed under Section 16 and in case the penalty is not
paid, a person concerned can be arrested and sent to civil prison under
section 14 (2) with a view to compel him to pay up the penalty and
admittedly in this case that stage has not arrived since the adjudication
proceedings are still pending and no final orders are passed therein.
For all the above reasons I am of the opinion that:
(a) The Enforcement authorities had no power to call upon or compel the
physical presence of LKM before them in connection with the investigation
commenced by them.
Page 11 of 15
(b) In any event once the investigation has come to an end, no such power
can conceivably inferred.
(c) Once the very foundation on the basis of which the Enforcement
authorities requested the Passport authorities to initiate action against LKM is held
to be unsustainable it would equally follow that the initiation of proceedings under
the Passports Act would equally become incompetent and without jurisdiction.
Query No.2:
It would be evident from the notice issued by the Passport authorities and
their orders that the only purpose for which the proceedings against LKM have been
initiated under the Passports Act is to compel LKMs presence before the
Enforcement authorities. The question is whether such a purpose can fall within the
expression interests of general public employed in Section 10 (3)(c) of the
Passports Act, 1967. It is true that the said expression is of wide amplitude but can
it be said that the proceedings under the Passports Act can be taken, not for the
purpose of the Passports Act but to achieve the ends of authorities under different
enactments. Here again even if it is assumed that such a power exists, its exercise
in this case is bad. The authorities, after having noticed that the desired purpose of
the Enforcement authorities could have been achieved by accepting the LKMs offer
to appear by video-conferencing and to answer all questions and interrogatories,
yet insisted upon personal / physical presence of LKM before them.
Such an
attitude is bound to create suspicion about the bona fides of the said authorities
and of their said purpose. It looks as if the authorities want to achieve some other
oblique purpose by compelling LKM to be present in person before them.
Page 12 of 15
It may also be noticed in this connection that the show cause notice dated
15.10.2010 issued by the Assistant Passport Officer only called upon LKM to show
cause why action under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967 should not be
initiated against you. Without any further show cause notice and without giving an
opportunity to LKM to show cause why his passport should not be revoked, the
Passport Officer passed orders revoking the passport.
where the Passports Authority did not afford an opportunity to explain as to why his
passport should not be revoked. The pressure of Enforcement authorities is evident
from their request made to the Passports Authorities (referred to in the letter dated
1.11.2010 from the Assistant Passport Officer to LKM and his advocates) to
impound his passport.
notice dated 15.10.2010 issued by the Assistant Passport Officer, there is again a
direction
to
LKM
to
represent
his
case
in
person
which
is
totally
ununderstandable. It is evident that the Passport authorities were totally under the
influence of Enforcement authorities and were merely carrying out their diktat.
Even the reference to interrogation in the orders of the Passport authorities is
indicative of the real purpose of the Enforcement authorities.
Page 13 of 15
achieve their not very desirable objectives.
Query No.3:
The question is whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it does not provide any guidance
in which cases to impound the passport and in which cases to revoke it;
the
Section 10(3)(c) of
Variation,
impounding
and
revocation
of
passports
and
travel
documents.- .
(3) The passport authority may impound or cause to be impounded or revoke
a passport or travel document, ..
(c) If the passport authority deems it necessary so to do in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of
India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the
interests of the general public;
...
In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 267] the Supreme Court
has held that impounding means withholding of passport for a limited period and
Page 14 of 15
cannot be for an indefinite period of time. This holding makes it clear that while
impounding is a temporary measure for a given period, revocation is a final act and
a case of cancellation of the passport altogether. Even so, the grounds upon which
these two actions can be taken are the very grounds as are mentioned in Section
10(3)(c) viz., in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security
of India, friendly relations to India with any foreign country, (or) in the interests of
general public. Let us take a case where ground of interest of general public is
invoked.
imposed. It is left to his pleasure to choose one of them. This is the situation as
the law now stands inasmuch as the clause viz.., Section 10(3)(c), nor for that
matter any other provision in the Act, furnish any guidance to the Passport
authority in which cases the power of impounding should be exercised and in which
cases the power of revocation should be exercised.
Page 15 of 15
Applying the principle of the said decision it has to be held that in the
absence of any guidance either in Section 10(3)(c) or in the Passports Act, the
provision Section 10(3)(c) is rendered discriminatory and therefore violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
entirely distinct and different and was not considered in Maneka Gandhis case or in
any other decision brought to my notice.
************