The main legal point established in the judgment is the balance between the mandatory refusal to issue a passport based on pending criminal proceedings and the fundamental right to travel abroad as implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings bearing No.2000010_cpc_MDU dated 11.08.2020 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to re-issue the passport of the petitioner bearing No.Z5253543 on File No.MD2072792315920 and to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.)

1. The writ petitioner is the founder of Jesus Redeems Ministry and a well known evangelist. The petitioner applied for re-issuance of passport, because, his old one got damaged. The respondent called for police verification report. It then came to be known that the petitioner was involved in as many as four criminal cases. Therefore, the respondent vide notice dated 05.02.2020 called upon the petitioner to provide suitable explanation as to why the petitioner suppressed material information in his application. The petitioner vide explanation dated 11.02.2020 informed the respondent that further proceedings in all the cases have been stayed by the High Court. Not satisfied with the said explanation, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 11.08.2020 declining to process the petitioner's application further. Questioning the same, this writ petition came to be filed.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent erred in not properly considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner. Though four criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner, three are pending at the FIR stage and therefore, they cannot be a bar for considering the petitioner's application. Of course, one criminal case has been taken on file by the jurisdictional criminal court but further proceedings therein have been stayed. Therefore, pendency of one case against the petitioner in a criminal court cannot operate to his prejudice. He laid particular emphasis on the nature of the right to travel abroad. He therefore called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and allow this writ petition.

3. Per contra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the Madurai Bench appearing for the respondent contended that the impugned order is well founded and that it does not call for any interference.

4. Before I consider the rival contentions, I must remark that since we are in the age of social media, certain events tend to come to our notice on their own. I myself have seen a video in which the writ petitioner is seen exhorting the members of the Christian community to conduct prayer meetings so that Shri.Narendra Modi will not be re-elected to power. He has also made highly derogatory remarks against Hinduism. He thinks that the State of Tamil nadu is in the grip of Satan and that it is high time it is redeemed. It is not for this Court to opine as to whether a true religious personage will utter such remarks. My role is to examine the correctness of the impugned order and to see if any relief can be granted to the petitioner.

5. It is not in dispute that cases were registered against the petitioner before various police stations. Crime No.223 of 2018 registered on the file of the Government Hospital Police Station, Erode, culminated in a final report. Cognizance was also taken in STC No.1493 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode. Therefore, it can be stated that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. Of course, the proceedings in STC No.1493 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode have been stayed in Crl OP No.2733 of 2019. But the fact remains that the quash petition is still pending and has not been disposed of.

6. Section 6(2)(f) of the Indian Passports Act, 1967 reads as follows:

“Subject to the other provisions of t