IMPORTANT POINT
The pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to deny the renewal of a passport, and the right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair, and reasonable procedure.

ORDER

Surepalli Nanda, J. - Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition reads as under:

' to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in not renewing the passport by keeping the application pending vide File. No. HY1073960595922, dated: 16.02.2022 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of the natural justice, against the settled principles of law and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct Respondent No.2 to renew the passport of the petitioner pursuant to the application vide file no: HY1073960595922, dt. 16.02.2022, forthwith and to pass such other order or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that certain clarifications were sought by letter dated 27.04.2022 calling upon the petitioner to inform about the criminal cases pending against the petitioner and the petitioner had replied to the said notice dated 27.04.2022 issued to the petitioner vide letters dated 13.01.2023 and 10.01.2023 but however no order has been passed on the petitioner's application vide file No.HY1073960595922 dated 16.02.2022. Pendency of the criminal case is not a bar for renewal of the passport application. Hence, the writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

4. This court opines that pendency of criminal case against the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny issuance of Passport to the petitioner and the right to personal liberty would include not only the right to travel abroad but also the right to possess a Passport.

5. It is also relevant to note that the Respondents cannot refuse the renewal of passport of the petitioner on the ground of the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner and the said action of the respondents is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967 and also the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572 in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation.

6. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) had an occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, pendency of criminal cases and held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. Section 6.2(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and also Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against which, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to issue the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C.

7. The Apex Court in another judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under:

'The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed unde