Passport authorities can’t decide right to travel abroad, only trial courts can, rules Gujarat High Court

Issue a passport to the petitioner for a period of 10 years, in accordance with the Passports Act and Rules, Gujarat High Court directed. (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

• The passport authorities do not have any authority to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad and such authority is only vested in the trial court.
• The power of the passport office is limited to issuing or renewing passports in accordance with statutory rules and judicial orders.
• Deciding whether an accused can leave India, or imposing conditions on such travel, lies exclusively with the trial court.
• Issue a passport to the petitioner for a period of 10 years, in accordance with the Passports Act and Rules.
• If the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he must apply to the appropriate trial court for permission.
• The trial court would be free to impose conditions it deems fit and proper.
• Any application for issuance of the passport must be decided expeditiously, within four weeks from the date of application.
• The notification dated August 25, 1993, issued under Section 22 read with Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides exemptions and conditions for issuance of passports to individuals against whom criminal proceedings are pending, subject to court permission.
• A verdict of the Bombay High Court dated March 13, 2014 clarified that once a competent court permits issuance or renewal of a passport, the passport authorities must act in accordance with the Passports Act and Passport Rules, and cannot impose independent restrictions.
• The guidelines laid down by the Bombay High Court, though not binding, had strong persuasive value and applied squarely to the facts of the present case.

Background

• The petitioner had approached the high court seeking a direction to the authorities to issue him a fresh passport.
• In 2022, a case had been registered against him for offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 ( intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace), 506(2) (criminal intimidation when the threat involves causing death, grievous hurt, or destroying property by fire) and 114 (Abettor present when offence is committed) of the Indian Penal Code.
• Section 114 entails if someone helps (abets) an offence but is not there, and then shows up when the crime happens, they are treated as if they committed the act themselves, making them equally liable for the crime, as if they were there from the start,
• Following investigation, the police filed a report, concluding that no offence was made out.
• This report was accepted by the magistrate’s court on November 9, 2022.
• However, the order was later challenged, and a criminal revision was allowed by the sessions court.
• A connected petition by a co-accused is currently pending adjudication before the high court.

Arguments

• Advocate Dharnesh R Patel, counsel for the petitioner argued that merely because criminal proceedings were pending, the passport authority could not refuse issuance of a passport.
• It was submitted that the petitioner wished to travel abroad and that there was no subsisting judicial order restraining issuance of a passport.
• Advocate Pradip D Bhate, appearing for the state contended that persons facing criminal proceedings must first obtain permission from the concerned court before a passport can be issued.
• He said that the petitioner had not yet made a formal application to the passport authority.