‘Won’t stand scrutiny’: Delhi High Court reverses MEA decision seizing passport of Raheja Developers director over 2018 FIR

The court, in its February 20 order, reiterated that the right to hold a passport and to travel abroad is an integral aspect of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Application to renew passport

• The petitioner, Raheja, applied for renewal of his passport in October 2024.
• During the verification process, a First Information Report (FIR) registered in March 2018 was noted by the authority concerned.
• A show-cause notice was issued on January 2, 2025, and the petitioner replied to the same on January 15, 2025.
• However, the impounding order was passed on the ground that the petitioner had not disclosed the pendency of the FIR at the time of applying for renewal.
• The petitioner’s appeal against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority concerned.

Justice Purushaindra K Kaurav held that the right to hold a passport is an integral aspect of the right to personal liberty.

‘FIR does not amount to pendency of criminal proceedings’

• Appearing for Raheja, advocate Sandeep Kapur and Karanjawala & Co argued that the said impounding order has placed reliance upon the office memorandum of October 2019 issued by the Centre, particularly the MEA.
• Kapur emphasised the provisions of the said office memorandum to contend that mere registration of an FIR does not amount to pendency of criminal proceedings within the meaning provided in the Passports Act.
• He then pointed out that unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction has taken cognisance of the offence, no such impounding order should have been passed.
• The Centre’s standing counsel, Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, represented the MEA in the case.

Scrutiny of MEA order

• The high court found that the MEA’s orders do not withstand the scrutiny of law.
• It was noted that the petitioner had applied for renewal of his passport in October 2024, and the said impounding order was passed on January 17, 2025.
• However, cognisance of the offence was taken by the competent court only on February 7, 2025, which clearly indicates that no criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time the impounding order was passed.
• Clause 5(vi) of the MEA memorandum of October, passed in 2019, is relevant in deciding this case of impounding of the petitioner’s passport.
• This clause points out that where the secondary police verification is also ‘adverse’, it may be examined whether the details brought out in the police report match the undertaking submitted by the applicant.

• The clause also says that the mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation does not come under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) (proceedings pending against applicant over alleged criminal offence) of the Passports Act, and that criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before any court and the court has taken cognisance of the same.
• The legitimate purpose behind Section 6(2)(f) and Section 10(3)(e) (proceedings pending against passport holder over an alleged criminal offence) of the Act is to ensure that a person facing such proceedings remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court.
• The MEA’s decision to impound the passport before the court took cognisance was unsustainable in law and therefore deserves to be set aside.

‘Right to hold passport’

• The Supreme Court has pointed out previously that the right to hold a passport and to travel abroad is an integral aspect of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• It follows that any state action affecting the right to hold a passport must satisfy the test of reasonableness and must be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
• The court also emphasised another case of the apex court, which involved a scenario where cognisance had been taken, and criminal proceedings were actively pending, and noted that the Supreme Court held that even in that more advanced factual situation, Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act is not an absolute bar.
• To add to these safeguards, an indefinite denial of even a renewed passport would be a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on the applicant’s liberty.
• This ruling of the Delhi High Court has reinforced the requirement that passport authorities must act strictly in accordance with the statutory conditions and established judicial principles when exercising the power to impound a citizen’s passport and to reaffirm the right to travel abroad.