SUREPALLI NANDA
Karre Ravi Kiran Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
(Surepalli Nanda, J.)
1. Heard Mr.L.Aravind Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.K.V.V.Vedantha Chary, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 8.
2. Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :
3. The
The court ruled that the revocation of a passport cannot be justified solely based on pending criminal cases, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to travel as a fundamental liberty....
The pendency of a criminal case does not justify the refusal of passport services, as individuals retain their right to travel freely, protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically bar passport renewal; restrictions on rights must be just and legal, emphasizing individual liberty under Article 21.
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....
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 fundamental right to travel abroad should not be deprived except by a just, fair, and reasonable procedure, as per the principles established by various judgments.
The denial of passport renewal based solely on pending cases without affording a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice and the right to livelihood 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.