IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Pradyumn Ahuja – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 4486 of 2023 and Cr.M.A. 17165 of 2023 (int. directions)
Decided On : 28-08-2023
Passport Renewal - Passport Issuance - Passports Act, 1967, Section 22(a) - The court discussed the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, particularly Section 22(a) and a notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs regarding the issuance/renewal of passports for individuals with pending criminal cases. The court also referred to the judgment in Kasturi Rajupeta v. Union of India & Ors. and the Supreme Court's decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, which emphasized the right to travel abroad as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to renewal/issuance of passport for a regular period of ten years without the need for permission from the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought renewal/issuance of passport for a period of 10 years, which was dismissed by the ACMM, East District, Karkardooma Court. The petitioner argued that the limited validity of the passport was causing hardship as it did not meet the requirements for travel abroad.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the limited validity of the passport was causing undue hardship. The court also noted that the petitioner had to seek permission from the court before traveling abroad, and there was no basis to deny renewal/issuance of passport for a regular period of ten years.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to renewal/issuance of passport for a regular period of ten years without the need for permission from the court, considering the pending criminal case and the limited validity of the passport.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and that the limited validity of the passport was causing hardship to the petitioner. The court also emphasized that the petitioner had to seek permission from the court before traveling abroad, and there was no basis to deny renewal/issuance of passport for a regular period of ten years.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The passport authorities were directed to renew/issue passport of the petitioner for a regular period of ten years.
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--By way of the present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 1st May, 2023 passed by the ACMM, East District, Karkardooma Court in Complaint Case No.52496/2016, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of permission for issuance/renewal of passport for ten years has been dismissed.
2. On the last date of hearing, notice was issued to the respondent no.2.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 has been duly served.
4. None appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service.
5. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent no.2 filed a Complaint Case No. 52496/2016 against the management of the Vivekanand School and the petitioner, who is the chairman of the said School. The respondent no.2 was working as an assistant teacher (Nursery) in the said school before she was relieved from the post of assistant teacher vide order dated 7th July, 2017 issued by the school for not having requisite qualifications as per Recruitment Rules. The appeal filed by the respondent no.2 before Delhi School Tribunal against the aforesaid order was also dismissed stating that the respondent no. 2 was not entitled to the relief of reinstatement, as she does not possess the required qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Nursery). The allegations made by the respondent no.2 in the complaint filed against the petitioner before the Trial Court pertains to harassment and forceful resignation. The matter is at the stage of final arguments before the Trial Court.
6. The petitioner filed an application for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for issuance/renewal of passport of the petitioner in the said complaint case. Vide order dated 7th November, 2022, the Trial Court granted no objection to the issuance/renewal of passport of the petitioner as per the prescribed rules, while directing that the accused shall not leave the country without the permission of the Trial Court.
7. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 22(a) of the Passports Act, 1967, the Ministry of External Affairs issued a notification dated 25th August, 1993 with regard to issuance/renewal of passports of persons against whom criminal cases are pending before courts in India. The relevant portion of the aforesaid notification is set out below:
"(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued
i. For the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or
ii. If no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year;
iii. If such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or
iv. If such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for a period of travel abroad specified in the order."
8. Since no specific time period for renewal/issuance of passport was mentioned in the order passed by the Trial Court on 7th November, 2022, the passport of the petitioner was issued/renewed for a period of one year in terms of the aforesaid notification.
9. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for issuance/renewal of passport for a period of 10 years before ACMM, East District, Karkardooma Court. The said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 1st May, 2023 while observing that it is not the case of the petitioner that he has to travel abroad frequently and the issuance of passport for a year is causing hardship to the petitioner.
10. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that due to the issuance/renewal of passport for a limited period of one year, the petitioner is unable to travel abroad as in most
AI
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the limited validity of a passport causing undue hardship may warrant renewal/issuance of passport....
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically bar passport renewal; restrictions on rights must be just and legal, emphasizing individual liberty under Article 21.
The right to hold a passport is integral to personal liberty; arbitrary restrictions due to ongoing criminal proceedings, without conviction, are unreasonable.
The right to renew a passport is part of personal liberty and cannot be arbitrarily restricted without due process, particularly when the individual is not convicted.
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.