Abdus Sabur Khan v. Union Ofindia & Ors

MANMOHAN, J December 10, 2010 pk

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 10th December, 2010 + LPA No. 878/2010 ABDUS SABUR KHAN ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Amjad Ali, Mr.Anil Agarwalla, Mr. Jagdeep Anand, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 9 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ In this intra-Court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent questioning the warrantableness of the order dated 25th November, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 7898/2010, though on the surface level, a question is raised as to the locus standi of the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") as a father to question the legal propriety of the order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Foreigners Division, Government of India under Section 3A of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (for brevity "the Act") whereby the competent authority has passed an order that the respondent no.10, Ms. Shazia Zareen Sathi, the daughter of the appellant, will remain exempted from deportation proceedings, yet on a studied scrutiny and a keener scan, it would be luminescent that the father has put his obstinacy and honour in its degenerated sense at a higher pedestal in the name of parental concern totally ostracising the idea and the value that a major has the choice to get married and also a right to life and not to live in constant fear psychosis. True it is, it has been said "the family is the nucleus of civilisation", but the question that emerges for consideration is whether a daughter, after getting protection from the authority of MHA, would still remain subservient to the loud and morbid honour of her father who is embedded with his "coveted honour". Long back, Aristotle had pronounced, "Dignity doesn"t consist in possessing honour, but in deserving them". As the factual matrix of the case would unfold, it would reveal that the respondent no.10 has the intense desire to get rid of the "family skeleton" and the "myth of honour" and lead a life of her own choice. 2. The exposition of facts, as unfurled, are that the daughter of the appellant, a major, came to India on her own on a Bangladeshi passport and got married to one Zubair Khan on 13th February, 2009 and thereafter submitted a representation to the Central Government on 28th May, 2010 wherein she expressed an apprehension that if she went back to Bangladesh, her life would be in danger. The learned Single Judge perused the impugned order which showed acceptance of the apprehension expressed by Ms.Shazia Zareen Sathi and the formation of an opinion that all the provisions of the Act shall not apply to her as well as to her daughter and she would remain exempted from deportation proceedings. Upon perusal of the order the learned Single Judge held that the writ petition was not filed in the best interest of the respondent No.10 as she has a choice to marry and the plea of the father that he is concerned with the safety and welfare of his daughter is not convincing and, hence, the impugned order at the instance of the appellant is not to be interfered with. 3. We have heard Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Amjad Ali, Mr.Anil Agarwalla and Mr.Jagdeep Anand for the appellant and Mr. Ruchir Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 9. 4. Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel, questioning the correctness of the order, submitted that the learned Single Judge has, in a way, opined that the appellant has no locus standi to call in question the order of the authority which is demonstrably erroneous. It is his further submission that as a father, the appellant has the concern and also the duty to see that h