New Delhi: When Gaurav and Saurabh Luthra boarded an early morning flight to Phuket on 7 December, they allegedly tried to evade responsibility for the deadly fire that killed 25 people at their Goa nightclub.
But a legal strike by the Indian government is set to cut their stay short.
By suspending their passports under The Passports Act, 1967—with permanent revocation under consideration—authorities transformed status of the Goa nightclub owners from tourists into those traveling without valid documents.
The move allows the government to deport them from Thailand and sidestep the formal extradition process that can take up to years to complete.
Also Read: Goa nightclub fire: No business in Thailand, Luthra bros clearly tried to flee, police tell court
The legal framework
The Passports Act, 1967 provides the statutory framework for regulating travel documents, departure from India and related matters such as revocation and suspension. The law grants the government powers to issue, suspend, impound or revoke passports, and serves two purposes: regulating travel and ensuring criminal law enforcement when an accused person flees India.
In the case of the Luthras, Indian officials suspended their passports under Section 10-A of the Act, a provision added in 2002 to deal with flight-risk cases. The section allows the government to freeze a passport for up to four weeks if it is likely to be impounded or if public interest demands immediate action.
“…If the Central Government or any designated officer is satisfied that the passport or travel document is likely to be impounded.. and it is necessary in the public interest…he may by order, suspend, with immediate effect, any passport,” the provision states.
Once suspended, the passport is marked “invalid” in global databases, which border control systems detect at check-in and immigration counters.
The suspension was paired with a show-cause notice, giving the brothers an opportunity to explain why their passports should not be revoked permanently.
Grounds for revocation
The government, news agency PTI reported, is considering permanent revocation of the Luthras’ passports under Section 10(3), which provides two specific grounds relating to criminal activity and public interest, of the Act.
Section 10(3)(h) allows revocation if a court has issued a warrant or summons against the holder. A Goa court had already issued a non-bailable warrant against the duo after the fire was reported late on 6 December.
Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is broader. It permits revocation of a person’s passport in the “interests of the general public” or “sovereignty and integrity of India”.
In 1978, the Supreme Court had held in the Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case powers to revoke passports must follow “natural justice”. The top court ruled that a person should be heard before their passport is cancelled. But, in urgent cases, the court carved out the concept of “post-decisional hearing”, which allows passport revocation first and lets the accused present their case later.
Section 10(5) of the Act requires that reasons for revocation of a passport be recorded in writing and furnished to the passport holder.
Also Read: Goa nightclub fire: ‘Threats, thyroid & onus on manager’ in Luthra bros’ junked pre-arrest bail plea
Emergency certificate and deportation
Once a passport is revoked, the Indian Mission—in this case, the Embassy in Bangkok—will issue a one-way travel document called an Emergency Certificate (EC). This is strictly for repatriation and is issued to Indian nationals who have been refused a passport, whose passports have been lost or revoked, or who face deportation.
Unlike a passport, an EC allows only a single journey back to India.
Before their flight, the brothers will likely be held at the Immigration Detention Centre in Bangkok until the EC is issued and they are deported.
Bypassing extradition
The CBI, India’s liaison agency for INTERPOL, initially issued a Blue Corner Notice requesting foreign jurisdictions to collect information on the brothers’ identity and activities. This was followed by a Red Corner Notice, which requests law enforcement authorities worldwide to arrest a person.
Since the duo’s passports have been revoked and they will likely be deported for immigration violations, the complex process of formal extradition will be bypassed. Extradition requires a formal request, supporting documents and judicial scrutiny in the requested country. Deportation is simpler, allowing a country to remove a foreign national who has violated its immigration laws.
With the Luthras now technically undocumented, Thailand can deport them on the basis that they do not possess valid passports.
On their return, the brothers face charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 105), negligent conduct with respect to fire (Section 287) and acts endangering life (Section 125). The maximum punishment under Section 105 of the BNS is life imprisonment.
(Edited by Prerna Madan)