Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Anita Sumanth, J.
Karti P. Chidambaram - Appellant
Vs.
The Regional Passport Officer, Chennai Regional Passport Office, Chennai - Respondent
WP. No. 1190 of 2024
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Passport - Curtailment of Validity - Passport Act, 1967, Passport Rules, 1980 - The judgment discusses the curtailment of the petitioner's passport validity and the legal provisions governing the issuance and renewal of passports. The court analyzes the applicability of Section 5 and Section 9 of the Passport Act, the grounds for refusal under Section 6(2), and the provisions for curtailment and extension of passport validity under Section 7 and Section 8. The court concludes that Section 5 applies to both new issuance and renewal of passports, and the grounds for refusal under Section 6(2) are applicable to both situations. The court also addresses the lack of reasoning for the curtailment of the petitioner's passport validity and directs the respondent to issue a passport with a regular validity of 10 years.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Member of Parliament, filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to re-issue his passport for a full validity of 10 years. The respondent had curtailed the validity of the petitioner's passport to one year without providing any reasoning for the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Section 5 of the Passport Act applies to both new issuance and renewal of passports, and the grounds for refusal under Section 6(2) are applicable to both situations. The court also noted the lack of reasoning for the curtailment of the petitioner's passport validity and directed the respondent to issue a passport with a regular validity of 10 years.
Issues: The main issue was the curtailment of the petitioner's passport validity and the legal provisions governing the issuance and renewal of passports.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 5 of the Passport Act applies to both new issuance and renewal of passports, and the grounds for refusal under Section 6(2) are applicable to both situations. The court also addressed the lack of reasoning for the curtailment of the petitioner's passport validity and directed the respondent to issue a passport with a regular validity of 10 years.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to issue a passport with a regular validity of 10 years.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's online application dated 02.01.2024 and re-issue/renew the Petitioner's passport bearing No.Z6044131 for the normal period of ten years from 05.03.2024 as per Rule 12(1) of the Passport Rules, 1980 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.)
1. The petitioner is the holder of passport bearing No.Z2825031, issued on 06.03.2014 with validity till 05.03.2024. He is a Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) having been duly elected from the Sivagangai Constituency in the general elections held in 2019.
2. As per the counter filed by the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, sole respondent, there are six cases pending as against the petitioner, details of which are below:
ii. ECIR/05/DZ/2012/DD(RS)/1286-87/2012 (Charge sheet filed & taken cognizance by Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-09 (MP’s/MLA’s cases), Rouse Courts, New Delhi)
iii. FIR No.RC 220 2017 E 0011 (Charge sheet filed & taken cognizance by Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-09 (MP’s/MLA’s cases), Rouse Courts, New Delhi)
iv. ECIR/07/HIU/2017 (Charge sheet filed & taken cognizance by Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-09 (MP’s/MLA’s cases), Rouse Courts, New Delhi)
v. FIR No.190/2014 (Madras High Court)
vi. FIR No.217 2015 A 0111 (petitioner not named as accused in charge sheet filed by CBI)
3. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (C) No.739 of 2018 before the Delhi High Court which had been transferred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and numbered as Transfer Case (Crl.) Nos. 3 and 4 of 2018 challenging the initiation of cases by the Enforcement Directorate (in short ‘ED’).
4. The Delhi High Court had, on 09.03.2018, granted an interim stay of the ED taking any coercive action against the petitioner upon condition that the petitioner should deposit his passport with the Assistant Director of ED.
5. The petitioner has been approaching the Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-09, Delhi as well as the Supreme Court seeking permission to travel abroad and permission has been granted as follows:
| S.No. | Date of the Order granting permission to travel abroad | Period for which permission was granted to travel |
| 1 | 20.11.2017 | 01.12.2017 - 10.12.2017 |
| 2 | 16.02.2018 | 17.02.2018 - 28.02.2018 |
| 3 | 18.05.2018 | 19.05.2018 - 27.05.2018 |
| 4 | 18.05.2018 | 10.06.2018 - 22.06.2018 |
| 5 | 23.07.2018 | 24.07.2018 - 31.07.2018 |
| 6 | 23.07.2018 | 15.08.2018 - 31.08.2018 |
| 7 | 18.09.2018 | 20.09.2018 - 01.10.2018 |
| 8 | 30.01.2019 | 10.02.2019 - 26.02.2019 |
| 9 | 30.01.2019 | 23.03.2019 - 31.03.2019 |
| 10 | 07.05.2019 | 13.05.2019 - 21.05.2019 |
| 11 | 07.05.2019 | 09.06.2019 - 16.06.2019 |
| 12 | 14.02.2020 | 18.02.2020 - 01.03.2020 |
| 13 | 22.02.2021 | 01.03.2021 - 23.06.2021 |
| 14 | 25.10.2021 | 25.10.2021 - 21.11.2021 |
| 15 | 01.02.2022 | 10.02.2022 - 28.02.2022 |
| 16 | 23.03.2022 | 25.03.2022 - 10.04.2022 |
| 17 | 23.03.2022 | 09.05.2022 - 24.05.2022 |
| 18 | 23.03.2022 | 05.06.2022 - 15.07.2022 |
| 19 | 23.03.2022 | 25.09.2022 - 10.10.2022 |
| 20 | 23.03.2022 | 19.10.2022 - 25.11.2022 |
| SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-09, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, DELHI | ||
| 21 | 30.01.2023 | 12.02.2023 - 01.03.2023 |
| 22 | 03.04.2023 | 09.04.2023 - 22.04.2023 |
| 23 | 11.05.2023 | 20.05.2023 - 31.05.2023 |
| 24 | 12.06.2023 | 25.06.2023 - 17.07.2023 |
| 25 | 25.08.2023 r/w11.09.2023 | 22.09.2023 - 01.10.2023 |
| 26 | 16.10.2023 | 21.10.2023 - 01.11.2023 |
| 27 | 07.11.2023 | 11.11.2023 - 20.11.2023 |
| 28 | 19.12.2023 | 26.12.2023 - |
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 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.
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 court established that the legal restrictions on passport issuance also govern its renewal, particularly in the context of pending criminal proceedings.
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 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....
The main legal point established is that the pendency of criminal cases should not lead to denial of passport facilities, as per the Passports Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980, and suppo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
