Back
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, MANISH KUMAR
Gaurav Garg – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner in the Court of Criminal jurisdiction for an offence under Sections 4 98A, 504 & 506, I.P.C. and Sections 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, Hazaratganj, District Lucknow, and he says that petitioner wants to go abroad and needs a Passport for the same, but respondents are not renewing the same.
3. We find that as per Section 6(2)(f) of the PASSPORT ACT , 1967 one of the grounds for non issuance of a Passport is that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before the Criminal Court in India. Of course this provision is subject to the other provisions in this Act. Now, we find that in exercise of powers under Section 22 (a) of the PASSPORT ACT , 1967 the Central Government has issued a notification dated 25th August, 1993 which reads as under:-
"Government Of India
Ministry Of External Affairs
Notification
Refunding of passport amid criminal proceedings is permissible with court authorization, emphasizing public interest balancing with individual rights under the Passport Act, 1967.
The restriction in Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 is not absolute and may be relaxed by court order for individuals with pending criminal cases, as per the notification dated 25.08.1993.
The mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not justify the denial of passport issuance, reaffirming the right to personal liberty and travel under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically bar passport issuance; personal liberty must be considered.
Passport issuance or renewal is contingent upon production of orders from the concerned Court permitting the applicant to depart from India when a criminal case is pending before a Court.
Clause (f) of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act, 1967 is inapplicable to post-conviction or post-acquittal proceedings.
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....
Point of law: Since in cases where time is not fixed by the Magistrate while granting permission, the Passport authorities are issuing passports only for one year, the period for which the accused ca....
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
