Pending criminal cases no ground to reject passport applications, Andhra Pradesh High Court rules

Justice Battu Devanand made the observation while dealing with a batch of petitions who declared such actions of the passport authorities as illegal and unjust.

Court’s findings and directions

The point for consideration before the court was whether the passport authorities were justified in rejecting for issuance of passports or re-issuance of passports or renewal of passports of the petitioners on the ground of pendency of criminal cases/criminal proceedings against them.

At the outset the court noted that the issue raised in these writ petitions is no longer res integra. It added that the apex court and various high courts held that for issuance of passports or reissuance or renewal of passports cannot be withheld merely on account of the pendency of criminal proceedings.

Relying on precedents including Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 and can only be restricted through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law.

Considering the precedents, the high court held that the petitioners are entitled for issuance, re-issuance or renewal of passports.

“In the light of the above settled law and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of these cases, this Court holds that the petitioners are entitled for issuance or re-issuance or renewal of their Passports without reference to the criminal proceedings pending against them,” the court said.

The court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the passport authorities and directed it to consider and pass appropriate orders on the applications submitted by the petitioners for issuance of passports or re-issuance of passports or renewal of passports, subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioners to submit an undertaking, along with an affidavit affirming that he/she will not leave the country during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, pending against them without permission of the courts having jurisdiction and that he/she will cooperate with concerned trial court in concluding the proceedings.
• On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the concerned trial court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two weeks.
• The petitioners shall submit the certified copy of the aforesaid undertaking before the respondent-passport officer for issuance of passport or re-issuance or renewal of his/her passport.
• The passport officer shall consider the said application in the light of the observations made by the court herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioners for issuance of passport or re-issuance or renewal of his/her passport in accordance with law, within two weeks.
• On renewal of the passport, the petitioners shall deposit the original renewed passport before the concerned trial court.
• The petitioners shall file an application before the concerned trial court seeking permission to travel abroad.
• The concerned trial court shall consider the same, in accordance with law.

Supreme Court’s ruling

Last year, the top court had held that the freedom of a citizen to move, travel, pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution.

It further added that the state may regulate or restrain that freedom in the interests of justice, security or public order but such restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law.

“When procedural safeguards are converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden into indefinite exclusions, the balance between the power of the State and the dignity of the individual is disturbed, and the promise of the Constitution is put at risk,” the court said.