Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Medarmetla Manju Bhargavi – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Rep. By Its Secretary, Ministry Of External Affairs, New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
Petitioner, a medical practitioner holding an M.D. in Internal Medicine, who is managing Dr. Bhargavi Diabetes Center at Vijayawada, applied for renewal of her passport bearing No. 27880151 under File No. VJ2077360341525 dated 31.01.2025 before the passport authorities at Vijayawada. The authorities, by the notice dated 21.02.2025, impugned in this Writ Petition, declined to process the Application and required her to obtain prior permission from the Court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 3546 of 2021. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is before this Court for a declaration that impugned action violates Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
1.1. It is stated, during police verification, it was reported that Crime No. 126 of 2006 of S.R. Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, had culminated in filing of charge sheet and was pending as C.C. No. 3546 of 2021 before the Court of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. Based on this repo
The right to hold a passport and travel abroad is a fundamental liberty, and restrictions based solely on pending criminal proceedings must be just, fair, and reasonable.
The mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot bar passport renewal, emphasizing the right to travel under Article 21 and the necessity for authorities to comply with due process.
The court ruled that the renewal of a passport cannot be denied solely due to pending criminal proceedings, especially when such proceedings are stayed and no restraint is imposed by the trial court.
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 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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the pendency of criminal cases should not automatically lead to the refusal of passport renewal, as the provisions of the Passports Act, 19....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that a passport can be issued or renewed in the context of a pending criminal case only on the basis of production of orders from the concerned Cou....
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
