SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 1584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
Potturi Pradeep Kumar Varma - Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No: 19831 of 2024
Decided On : 23-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A Radhakrishna
For the Respondent: GP For Home, J U M V Prasad

The right to hold a passport and travel abroad is a fundamental right, which cannot be denied on the basis of pending criminal proceedings without due process, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 19 and 21 - Passport Act, 1967 - Renewal of passport refused by the Passport Officer based on adverse police remarks and pending criminal proceedings - Court held that refusal contravenes principles of natural justice as the criminal case is still pending - Court recognizes the fundamental right to hold a passport and travel abroad, which cannot be infringed without due process. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 14)

(B) The court reaffirmed that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, thus emphasizing the importance of maintaining fundamental rights during the pendency of criminal cases. (Paras 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, whose passport expired in June 2020, had applied for renewal but was denied due to remarks from the police related to a pending criminal case against him. Petitioner's application for employment abroad was hindered by the refusal to renew his passport.

Findings of Court:
The Passport Officer's directive to surrender his passport was deemed contrary to law, and the court directed the renewal of the passport without considering the criminal case.

Issues: Whether the Passport Officer can deny a passport renewal based on pending criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the presumption of innocence must be upheld, stating that fundamental rights can only be restricted through due process, while the right to travel is crucial for individual freedom.

Result: Writ petition allowed; the Passport Officer directed to renew the passport.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks renewal of passport. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. pending criminal case impacts passport application. (Para 4 , 5)
3. fundamental right to hold a passport. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court analyses grounds for passport denial. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. court mandates passport renewal under conditions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. miscellaneous applications are closed. (Para 17)

ORDER :

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.

1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:

“…to issue writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent/Passport Officer in not renewing my passport bearing No.H9804412 as illegal, arbitrary and capricious against the principles of natural justice offending Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent/Regional Passport Officer to renew my passport bearing No. H9804412 for a period of ten years in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. Petitioner herein was issued passport bearing No.H9804412 and the same is valid from 04.06.2010 to 03.06.2020. After expiry of the said passport, the petitioner made an application to the 2nd respondent for renewal of his passport. Then, the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to surrender his passport on the ground that adverse remarks were received from the police. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner herein surrendered his passport on 19.06.2020. Accordingly, a surrender certificate dated 22.06.2020 has also been issued to the petitioner to that effect.

4. Later, sister-in-law of the petitioner herein lodged a criminal case vide Crime No.215/2015 at Tadepalligudem Police Station, West Godavari District, under Section 4 98, 406, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioner herein and his family members and A1 being petitioner’s elder brother.

5. After investigation, the 4th respondent herein registered a crime in Cr.No.215 of 2015 against the petitioner and his family members, where the petitioner herein was shown as accused No.3. Thereafter, the said criminal case was numbered as C.C.No.130 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem and is still pending. While so, subject criminal proceedings were challenged by the petitioner vide Criminal Petition No.3554 of 2021 on the file of High Court, wherein this Court was pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.130 of 2020.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for renewal of passport to secure better employment in abroad. He further submits that the Respondent Authorities more particularly Respondent No.2 is not accepting the application of the petitioner and denying the renewal of the passport of the petitioner which is nothing but an infringement of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to hold a passport and freedom to go abroad as per her wish as held in catena of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India , [ 1978 AIR 597 ]

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents and also perused the material placed on record.

9. It appears that the surrender certificate dated 22.06.2020 was issued by Respondent No.2 on the premise that the petitioner herein is involved in a serious criminal case. But, the fact remains that the said criminal case is not yet finalized and the same is still pending on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of Respondent No.2 directing to surrender the passpor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top