Passport Issuance Clarified: 'Proceedings' Under Passports Act Include Criminal Investigations, Court Permission Required - 2024-01-19

Covering Law & Justice.

Allahabad High Court Streamlines Passport Issuance for Citizens Facing Criminal Scrutiny

Lucknow, [Date of Judgement - Assumed: Today] - In a significant judgment aimed at reducing litigation and ensuring efficient passport services, the Allahabad High Court has clarified the scope of "proceedings" under the Passports Act, 1967. The court, presided over by a division bench, addressed a batch of writ petitions from citizens facing delays in passport issuance due to pending criminal investigations or cases.

Background: Persistent Grievances Over Passport Delays

The High Court noted a consistent influx of petitions from citizens whose passport applications were stalled or rejected due to adverse police verification reports stemming from pending criminal investigations, FIRs, or non-cognizable reports (NCRs). Petitioners sought the court's intervention to direct the Regional Passport Office to process their applications in a timely manner, citing delays caused by pending criminal matters, even at pre-cognizance stages.

Court's Observations and Concerns

Expressing concern over the continuous stream of such cases, the bench emphasized the need for transparency, efficiency, and good governance in passport administration. The court observed that despite existing legal frameworks and government orders, citizens were still compelled to seek judicial intervention to expedite their passport applications. The court highlighted inadequacies in communication from passport authorities, particularly the lack of detailed reasons for application pendency on the online portal.

Expanding the Definition of "Proceedings"

A key aspect of the judgment is the court's interpretation of the word "proceeding" in Section 6(2)(f) and Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, which deals with refusal or cancellation of passports due to pending criminal proceedings. Drawing upon the Supreme Court's definition of "proceeding" in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal , the High Court held that the term is broad enough to encompass stages preceding a criminal trial, including criminal investigations initiated upon an FIR or even an enquiry.

The court reasoned:

"The word 'proceeding' is clearly wider in amplitude to include within its plain meaning, stages preceding a criminal trial. There is no warrant to construe it narrowly in the context of the Act."

Further elaborating on the rationale for this expanded interpretation, the court stated:

"To the extent the narrow construction of the word 'proceeding', under the Code may appear inadequate to administer the purpose of the Act, the same must be enlarged. Therefore, we have enlarged the scope of the word "proceeding" used in Sections 6(2)(f) and 10(3)(e) of the Act, to help achieve the purpose of the Act. All that it does is, ensure that the jurisdictional Criminal Court be informed in advance - of the foreign travel plan of a person accused of a criminal offence."

Court Permission Mandatory for Passport in Cases with FIR

Referencing the Government Order dated 25.08.1993, the court reiterated that citizens facing criminal proceedings could obtain passports with permission from the concerned criminal court. The judgment clarifies that this requirement extends to cases where a First Information Report (FIR) has been registered, even if cognizance has not yet been taken by the court.

However, in a significant relief, the court explicitly stated that:

"Insofar as NCR are concerned, learned A.S.G.I. has categorically and most fairly stated, there is no reason to withhold issuance, renewal or reissue of a passport. The Regional Passport Authority do not and in any case they shall not withhold issuance, renewal or re-issuance of individual passports against report of NCR against any citizen applicant."

This means that the Regional Passport Authority cannot withhold passports based solely on the pendency of Non-Cognizable Reports (NCRs).

Directions for Streamlined Process

To ensure effective implementation, the court issued a series of directives:

• Police Verification Reports (PVR): Police reports submitted to the Regional Passport Office must clearly specify if an NCR or FIR is registered against the applicant, including relevant details like NCR/FIR number, sections, and concerned police station and court.
• Web Portal & Communication: The Regional Passport Office, Uttar Pradesh, is directed to upload minimum information about pending criminal proceedings on its web portal, visible to applicants. Applicants must be informed to obtain court permission when an FIR is registered. This information should also be communicated via physical notice and, where possible, through SMS and full notice uploads on the web portal.
• NCR Cases: Passports must be issued, reissued, or renewed without delay in NCR cases, without requiring court permission.
• Timeframe for Intimation and Processing: The Regional Passport Office must intimate applicants about pending criminal proceedings within one week of receiving information from state authorities. Applicants should be given at least eight weeks to obtain court permission. Upon receiving permission, passport issuance should not be delayed beyond one week.
• Court's Role: Jurisdictional criminal courts are expected to expeditiously decide on permission requests, ideally within four weeks, considering urgency where cited.

Implications and Conclusion

This judgment is expected to significantly reduce the backlog of passport applications and litigation related to passport delays in Uttar Pradesh. By clarifying the definition of "proceedings" and streamlining the communication and processing mechanisms, the Allahabad High Court has taken a proactive step to ensure citizens' right to travel is balanced with legitimate security concerns, without undue bureaucratic hurdles. The directions provide a clear roadmap for both passport authorities and citizens, fostering a more efficient and transparent passport issuance system.