Point of Law : Provisions of Section 6(2)(f) employing the expression “proceedings … are pending before a criminal court” have to be liberally construed keeping in view other specific scenario mentioned in the companion clauses of the said sub-section.

ORDER :

Petitioner-lady is knocking at the doors of writ Court seeking invalidation of the Endorsement dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent-Regional Passport Officer and for a direction to consider her application for renewal of the passport, which has since expired. The Endorsement reads as under:

“To,

KASTURI RAJUPETA,

W/O SHIVAKUMAR REDDY CHENNAREDDY,

NO.14, RAMANASHREE,

TH MAIN,BTM LAYOUT, II STAGE,

BENGALURU – 560 076.

KARNATAKA, INDIA.

Subject: Clarifications required regarding issuance of Passport facilities to Shri/Smt/Kumari/Master KASTURI RAJUPETA.

This is in reference to your application for reissue, with file number BN1073465217721 dated 22/7/2021.

You are requested to submit the final disposal order of the case that is pending against you, to process your application for a full validity passport.

Alternatively, you may submit permission from the concerned Court for reissue of passport/travel abroad. The validity of the passport so issued would be subject to conditions mentioned in the court order as per gazette notification GSR 570(E) dated 25/08/1993.

Please quote the reference number mentioned in the top block of this letter for further correspondence.”

2. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through the learned ASG resist the writ petition by filing the Statement of Objections on 18.11.2021 principally contending that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner and therefore she should obtain and produce a facilitative order at the hands of the learned Judge of the said Court, so that her application for renewal of passport may be favourably considered. So contending, learned ASG seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

(a) The Right to travel is an inviolable human right enshrined under Article 13 of the UNIVERSAL DECLERATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Under our Constitution, the Right to travel abroad is held to be a facet of fundamental right to life & liberty guaranteed under Article 21 vide MANEKA GANDHI vs. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1978 SC 597. The Apex court relying on the opinion of Justice William O. Douglas in the case of KENT v. DULLES 357 US 116 (1958) observed: “…Mr. Justice Douglas said in Kent v. Dulles that ‘freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad like travel within the country, may be necessary for livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, (1) [1950] S.C.R. 594 or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our Scheme of values.’ And what the learned Judge, said in regard to freedom of movement in his country holds good in our country as well. Freedom of movement has been a part of our ancient tradition which always upheld the dignity of man and saw in him the embodiment of the Divine…”

(b) To go abroad, one needs Travel Documents namely, a Passport issued by his native country and the Visa that may be issued by the host country. At this juncture, it would be profitable to trace the historical and etymological origin of the use and nature of passports. The word Passport is derived from a French word, ‘passer’ (circa 15), literally meaning authorization to depart from the port. The word Visa is derived from Latin ‘videre’ (mid 19th century), which means ‘to see’, i.e., to see a place. The Madras High Court in V.G ROW vs. STATE OF MADRAS AIR 1954 Mad 240 has succinctly traced the history of the passport at paragraph 11 as under:

“…11. Historically, the original meaning of the term "passport" appears to have been different from the modern sense. It was evidently a rule of common law in the 14th and 15th centuries in England that no subject could leave the realm without a license or passport. This was founded on the theory that by a person leaving the r