Supreme Court directs passport authority to re-issue passport to UAPA accused, says procedural safeguards shouldn’t become barriers

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.

Case

The man was accused and chargesheeted under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 17 (raising funds for terrorist activities) of UAPA, and for substantive offences under Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA, Section 17 (involvement with unlawful associations) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) IPC.

By an interim order, the Jharkhand High Court directed that the accused shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and that he shall deposit his passport before the Trial Court. In compliance, the man’s passport was deposited before the NIA Court.

Separately, the man was tried in a CBI coal block matter before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, in a Delhi court. He was convicted and sentenced to a maximum term of four years’ imprisonment.

The accused challenged the order before the Delhi High Court which suspended the sentence awarded to the accused with a direction that the accused shall not leave the country without court’s permission.

The Delhi High Court granted “no objection” and permission for renewal of the accused’s passport for a period of ten years.

In the meantime, his passport expired therefore he submitted an application for re-issue of his passport before the RPO, Kolkata. The passport authority refused renewal citing pending criminal cases. The Calcutta High Court also upheld the order refusing renewal of his passport.

The court noted that the purpose behind Section 6(2)(f) and Section 10(3)(e) is to ensure that a person facing criminal proceedings remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court.

“That purpose is fully served in the present case by the conditions imposed by the NIA Court, Ranchi, and the Delhi High Court, which require the appellant to seek prior permission before any foreign travel and, in the NIA case, to re-deposit the passport immediately after renewal. To add to these safeguards an indefinite denial of even a renewed passport, when both criminal courts have consciously permitted renewal, would be a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on the appellant’s liberty,” the court said.

It further added that refusing renewal on the speculative apprehension that the accused might misuse the passport is to second-guess the criminal courts’ assessment of risk and to assume for the passport authority a supervisory role.

The court held that the Calcutta high Court while deciding the appeal treated Section 6(2)(f) as an absolute bar so long as any criminal proceeding is pending and without adequately appreciating that the criminal courts actually dealing with the accused’s cases have consciously permitted renewal while retaining stringent control over any foreign travel.

The court therefore set aside the order refusing renewal of passport and directed to re-issue an ordinary passport to the accused for the normal period of ten years from the date of issue, subject to compliance with the usual procedural requirements, within a period of four weeks.