IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
WPO No. 352 of 2024
Decided On : 15-05-2024
Passport - Renewal - Passports Act, 1967 (Sections 5, 6, 8) - The court interpreted the provisions of the Passports Act, concluding that the restrictions applicable to the issuance of a passport also apply to its renewal, particularly in cases involving pending criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, convicted under various IPC sections, sought renewal of his passport after a Delhi court granted permission. However, a Ranchi court allowed renewal only under strict conditions, leading to a dispute over the applicability of the Passports Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the restrictions on passport issuance under Section 6(2)(f) apply equally to renewals, especially when criminal proceedings are pending, thus denying the renewal request.
Issues: Whether the restrictions applicable to the issuance of a passport also apply to its renewal after the expiry of the initial term.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power to renew a passport is derived from the same provisions that govern its issuance, meaning that the same restrictions apply, particularly in cases of pending criminal charges.
Result: The petition for passport renewal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the restrictions applicable to the issuance of a passport under the Passports Act, 1967, including those under Section 6(2)(f) for pending criminal proceedings, equally govern renewal after expiry of the passport's term, treating renewal as akin to re-issuance under Section 5. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Key Statutory Interpretation: - Section 5 empowers the passport authority to issue passports or travel documents after inquiry, subject to other provisions like Section 6, which mandates refusal if proceedings for an offence are pending before a criminal court. (!) (!) (!) - Section 7 prescribes the default validity period (e.g., 10 years under Rule 12), but allows shorter periods for reasons recorded in writing. (!) (!) - Section 8 permits extension only for short-term passports issued under Section 7, up to the prescribed period, and explicitly applies issuance provisions (including Section 6) to such extensions. (!) (!) (!) - Section 9 regulates conditions and forms for issuance or renewal as prescribed, but does not confer independent renewal power. (!) (!) - Absent a specific renewal provision post-full-term expiry, authority derives renewal power from Section 5 (as re-issuance), subjecting it to Section 6 restrictions; Rules cannot expand statutory powers. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Application to Pending Criminal Cases: - Renewal cannot be granted for the default 10-year period if criminal proceedings are pending, even with court permissions limited to renewal process or conditional travel; absence of broad no-objection for travel invokes the Section 6(2)(f) bar. (!) (!) (!) - Post-expiry, no subsisting passport exists to impound/revoke under Section 10, reinforcing re-application of issuance rigours. (!) (!) (!)
Outcome: Petition for 10-year renewal dismissed due to pending proceedings without requisite permissions. (!)
JUDGMENT :
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The issue which has fallen for consideration is whether the rigours applicable to issuance of a passport for the first time apply to renewal of passport after the expiry of the term for which it was initially granted.
3. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to maximum imprisonment of four years under Sections 120B, 420, 471, 411 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on April 25, 2022 by a Delhi court. An appeal is pending against the same before the High Court at Delhi. By an order dated September 4, 2023, a Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court granted no objection/permission for renewal of the petitioner’s passport for a period of ten years upon considering that the order suspending the sentence of the petitioner noted that the petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the Court.
4. On the other hand, in a different pending criminal proceeding before the Additional Judicial Commissioner XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, the said court by an order dated July 10, 2023 directed the passport of the petitioner to be handed over to the petitioner for the limited purpose of renewal on furnishing the indemnity bond of Rs. 50,000, subject to filing of an undertaking that he will not obtain Visa to travel outside India after renewal of passport without permission of the said court and will deposit the passport to the court’s office immediately after renewal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in view of both the courts having granted permission for renewal, the passport of the petitioner should be renewed for a period of ten years.
6. It is argued that the provisions of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1967 Act”) applies only to issuance of passports and not to renewal. Hence, irrespective of Section 6(2)(f) of the 1967 Act, the petitioner’s passport should be renewed for the default period of ten years as stipulated under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 (in short “the 1980 Rules”).
7. Controverting such submission, the respondent-authorities argue that the rigours of issuance of passport also apply to a renewal after the expiry of the tenure of passport.
8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited several judgments which are dealt with below.
9. In Ashok Khanna vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2019 SCC Online Del 11080, a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court observed that Section 6 is not applicable to the case of a renewal. While so holding, the learned Single Judge considered the distinctions between Form EA(P)-1 for new/re-issue/replacement of lost/damaged passports, which contains a declaration by the applicant whether any criminal case is pending and furnishing of No Objection Certificate from the competent court, and Form EA(P)-2, which applies to renewal of passport, containing a clause for disclosure of whether any criminal case is pending but without the requirement of furnishing a No Objection Certificate from the criminal court.
10. On such premise, the court went on to hold that since there is separate provision for renewal of passport, Section 6 is not applicable. The same view was followed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata vs. Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Represented by its Principal Secretary and Others, 2020 SCC Online Kar 3437.
11. A contra view, however, was taken by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kadar Valli Shaik v. Union of India, Rep. By its Secretary, New Delhi and Others, 2023 SCC Online AP 406. The said learned Single Judge read section 5 of the 1967 Act along with Rule 5 and the Forms in Schedule-III to observe that it is evident that renewal of passport is also covered under Section 5 of the Act and issue as well as renewal of passport shall be subject to the other provisions of the Act
AI
Pending criminal proceedings can bar the renewal of a passport under the Passports Act, necessitating compliance with statutory provisions and court permissions for validity.
The denial of passport renewal due to pending criminal proceedings is justified under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, applicable to all forms of passport issuance.
Pendency of criminal proceedings bars the re-issuance of a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967; exceptions are subject to specific court orders.
The Supreme Court clarified that the right to renew a passport is not absolute when criminal proceedings are pending, as long as judicial permissions are in place to regulate travel, ensuring the bal....
Ongoing criminal proceedings can bar regular passport issuance under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, while allowing for a short validity passport contingent on court approval.
The court clarified that individuals facing criminal proceedings can obtain passport renewals based on trial court permits, without needing a separate order to depart from India, affirming the limita....
The pendency of a criminal case does not justify the refusal of passport services, as individuals retain their right to travel freely, protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically bar passport renewal; restrictions on rights must be just and legal, emphasizing individual liberty under Article 21.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.