Back
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.
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
