IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Rajeev Singh Dugal son of Purushottam Singh Dugal - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr.M.P. No. 558 of 2022
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Passport Renewal - Right to Travel Abroad - Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 - Passports Act, 1967, Section 6
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash the order rejecting the grant of No Objection Certificate for the renewal of the petitioner's passport, citing the need to travel abroad for business purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and that the refusal to renew the passport infringed the petitioner's Right to Equality and the Right to Personal Liberty as enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal to grant a No Objection Certificate for passport renewal, the petitioner's right to travel abroad, and the interpretation of the Passports Act, 1967.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the right to travel abroad as a fundamental human right, as established in previous judgments, and the provisions of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.
Final Decision: The impugned order was modified, and the court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to issue the No Objection Certificate in favor of the petitioner, resulting in the disposal of the petition.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No.88 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.960 of 2020 whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the petition dated 19.01.2022 preferred by the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate for the purpose of renewal of the petitioner's passport, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur.
4. The informant namely Arvind Kumar, Police Inspector, C.C.R., Jamshedpur got the information that the Alcor Hotel was being used for immoral trafficking and some arrangement for parties were being made during prohibitory lock down period of COVID-19 and on that ground the FIR was lodged under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet has been submitted in that case and cognizance has been taken and the petitioner is facing trial. He further submits that for renewal of passport, the petitioner had earlier preferred W.P.(C) No.2574 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.12.2021 with direction to file fresh representation before the authority concerned for taking decision on the prayer of renewal of passport. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed representation which was disposed of by the Passport Officer, Ranchi and directed the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate from the concerned court. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a petition on 19.01.2022 which was considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same has been rejected. He also submits that the case of the petitioner comes under Sub-section 2(f) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967. He further submits that the petitioner was required to go abroad with regard to his business and for that renewal was required to be done, which has been refused. He also submits that refusal to renew a Passport infringes the petitioner's Right to Equality and the Right to Personal Liberty as enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments. He relied upon paragraph 5 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India & others, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048.
6. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment is quoted herein below”
“Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.”
7. By way of referring Annexure-B of the counter affidavit filed by the State, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police has verified and given a report that there is no difficulty in renewing the passport and in spite of that the learned
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right, and the refusal to renew a passport must be in accordance with the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the right to travel abroad as an important basic human right, supported by key legal provisions from the Passports Act, 1967.
The right to renew a passport and travel abroad is protected under Article 21, requiring judicial discretion to be applied, ensuring it is not curtailed arbitrarily while considering ongoing criminal....
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.