Back
Passport Denial Over Pending Criminal Cases Violates Ruling:
Issues to Consider Passport Application
In a significant ruling, the has held that a passport cannot be denied solely on the ground of pending criminal cases, reaffirming that a passport is a to which a citizen is entitled under the law. The division bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla issued an to the , to consider the petitioner's application for passport renewal in light of the 's decision in .
Case Background
The petitioner, Mohd. Aftab, had applied for issuance of a passport, but his application was withheld by the Regional Passport Officer on the ground that two criminal cases were pending against him. The first case, Case Crime No. 32 of 2024, involved offenses under , which the petitioner claimed was a "" and a . He was granted in that case. The second case, Case Crime No. 10 of 2024, included . The petitioner had challenged this case under , and the High Court had granted a of further proceedings, noting it appeared to be a civil dispute.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner, represented by , argued that the refusal of passport based solely on pendency of criminal cases was contrary to the law laid down by the . The Central Government Counsel, , relied on a previous decision in , which held that passport authorities could deny passport in such circumstances. However, the bench noted that the 's later decision in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal , which was not available when Pawan Kumar Rajbhar was decided, overrides that holding.
Legal Analysis
The court emphasized that the mere grant of a passport does not automatically allow the holder to travel abroad. It clarified that if the passport holder attempts to travel, the police or prosecuting agency can move the court to require surrender of the passport. The court stated,
"The issue of a passport is not that stage, when the petitioner is endeavoring to travel abroad."
The court distinguished between possessing a valid passport and the act of traveling abroad, citing the
's observation in
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal
that a passport is a that enables its holder to seek a visa, but whether a person on may leave the country is a matter for the criminal court.
Key Observations
The court made several pivotal observations:
"The passport is essentially a to which a citizen is entitled under the law and it is no business of the passport authorities to deny a passport on the ground that a criminal case is pending. It is another matter if the pendency of the criminal case is suppressed in the application made for the purpose."
"In the event of the holder of the passport is endeavoring to travel abroad, it is always open to the Police or the other prosecuting agency involved to move the Court for the purpose of requiring the holder of the passport to surrender his passport so as to prevent him from leaving Indian shores."
Court's Decision
The court admitted the and issued notice. It directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider the petitioner's application for passport, bearing in mind the law laid down by the in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal , or why the should not be made absolute. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on . The decision reinforces that passport authorities cannot act as a supervisory body over criminal courts, and that the power to restrict travel lies with the criminal court, not the passport office.
