Can't cancel passport even over declared debt, HC rules
It is unconstitutional to curtail a person's fundamental liberty by using powers not available to the court, the High Court ruled.
Top Stories
-
Motorcyclist in police car collision had licence seized: Police
-
Fenaka ordered to pay MVR 7.9 million to contractor in 15 days
-
'Manmohan Singh played vital role in South Asia's development'
-
Maldives condemns Israeli minister’s storming of Al-Aqsa Mosque
-
Motorcyclist critically injured in collision with police car
By
Aman Haleem
High Court on Sunday set aside several orders passed by the Civil Court seeking cancellation of passports in connection with a civil dispute case.
The Civil Court ordered the immigration authorities to cancel the passports of five persons in the verdict on debts proven in court. All of them had gone abroad when the orders were issued. They are:
-
Saif Ibrahim, M.A. Coronetpeak
-
Mohamed Bagir, V. Raahi
-
Mukhtar Adam, Daftharu No. 8882
-
Ismail Waheed, M. Binma Villa
-
Ahmed Shafaz, Asareege/F. Nilandhoo
However, the orders were challenged in the High Court on the ground that the orders were in violation of the regulations of procedure to be followed in proven debt transactions without collateral.
When the Attorney General's (AG) office asked the civil court to review the orders cancelling the passports, the court defended the decision on the ground that it has the power to cancel their passports. In its reply to the AG's office, the civil court had noted:
-
Court has the power to order impounding the passport of a person who has a proven debt
-
The spirit of the article that gives the right to withhold passports is to summon creditors to court
-
Cancellation of passport is a step to expedite court process
While this was justified by the lower court, Justice Huzaifa Mohamed, presiding over the case at the High Court, said that the seizure of passports and cancellation of passports cannot be treated as the same thing. The reason cited by the judge was that under the National Passport Rules, the provisions of impounding and cancellation of passports are defined in two different articles.
Justice Huzaifa had noted:
-
In this case, the Civil Court, in interpreting the law, seeks to add something which is not in the regulations to include things which are not part of the law or the provisions of the regulations
-
While the documents sent for cancellation are violative of a person's freedom of movement, it is unconstitutional to curtail a person's fundamental liberty by using powers not available to the court
"Since a person's liberty can only be curtailed by a law only after permission is granted by law, it is unconstitutional for the court to use a power which is not permitted by law or interprete it in such a manner as to allow permission," the judgment read.
Justice Huzaifa's opinion was appreciated when Justice Fathimath Farheeza, who sat on the bench, endorsed it. What was different was the opinion of Justice Hussain Majeed, who sat next on the bench. In his opinion, he concluded that since it was not clear how the state had the right to appeal the Civil Court orders, he favoured the dismissal of the appeal form.
