Haryanvi performer and dancer Sapna Choudhary, who had been struggling to get her passport renewed, received relief from the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, which set aside a trial court order and justification for denial by the Passport Authority.
Directions have been issued to the trial court to issue an NOC for renewal of passport, which shall be processed for a normal period of 10 years.
Sapna has been facing charges of criminal breach of trust and cheating in a case lodged at Lucknow’s Ashiana police station in 2018. The case was lodged after her performance at a show got cancelled; she was made co-accused in the case, along with the organisers.
The trial is pending in a Lucknow court.
In its order, the bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia issued directions to the Passport Authority, stating, “The Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. The Passport Authority is directed to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the criminal appeal in this Court.”
The court said, “Refusal of a passport can be only in cases where an applicant is convicted during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years.”
It further observed, “Admittedly, at present, the conviction of the appellant stands… at the [stage of] disposal of the criminal appeal. The sentence which she has to undergo is for a period of one year.”
“On the interpretation of the provisions of the Office Memorandum, as well as provisions of the Passport Act, it is clear that the issuance of passport and conditions to not leave the country without the permission of a court are two distinct things. In the present case, even in the bail order, no such restrictions have been placed upon the applicant for travelling abroad,” the court observed.
Story continues below this ad
It also stated, “Considering the need of the applicant to travel abroad for performing at various countries, prima facie, no material exists to suggest that the applicant would be a flight risk or that her application for re-issuance/renewal of the passport should not be considered in view of the absence of any adverse conduct of the applicant.”
“The case of the applicant is pending since 2018… clearly, on account of non-issuance /non-grant of passport, her rights are infringed merely because no documents have been filed… the request for travel abroad cannot be denied as has been done in the impugned order,” the court observed.
Sapna’s counsel told the court that the request for grant of NOC for renewal of the passport and to permit the applicant to travel abroad was rejected mainly on the ground that the applicant has not filed any relevant document to seek permission from the court to travel abroad like the specific period of travel, the country to which the applicant wishes to travel or for any other purpose.
The HC observed, “Applicant was enlarged on bail vide order, which is on record, in which, no condition was imposed by the court below with regard to the applicant not leaving the country without the permission of the Court. It is argued that in view of the pendency of the said case, the applicant was required to furnish an NOC from the trial court concerned in terms of the office memorandum issued under the Passports Act.”
Story continues below this ad
Sapna’s counsel argued that she receives offers to perform outside India and conditions generally include that she should have a valid travel passport. It was also argued that the case lodged against Sapna does not even directly implicate her as she was a stage performer and the cancellation was beyond her powers.
The counsel further argued that the denial of the NOC not only deprives one of the passport to travel abroad, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also violates rights of the applicant to earn a livelihood. It is also argued that the applicant has two children and substantial property within India and no material exists to suggest that the applicant would be at flight risk.
The court order mentioned that the counsel for the Union of India argued that in the light of the provisions contained in the Passport Act, there is no independent right of renewal of a passport vested and is subject to restrictions contained in Section 6(2) of the Passport Act. Referring to various related office memorandums, the counsel argued that the application of the applicant has been rightly rejected by the court below and no interference is called for.
