HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.31674 OF 2023
ORDER:
Heard Mr.T.Raghuram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondents.
2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the relief as follows:
"to issue a writ of certiorari or any other direction or order quashing the communication letter Ref No.SCN/315137527/23, File No.HY3075442573123, dated 26.06.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reissue passport as per law in the light of dictum noted above and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed application dated 07.06.2023 and sought for reissuance of passport to the petitioner. The petitioner received notice dated 26.06.2023 issued by the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad seeking certain clarifications from the petitioner and accordingly 2 WP_31674_2023 SN,J petitioner filed his reply dated 30.08.2023 clarified about the criminal cases pending against the petitioner as sought for vide letter of the Regional Passport Office, dated 26.06.2023 and in spite of the said clarification submitted for reissuance of passport bearing No.E1816198, the passport has not been issued to the petitioner as on date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent - Passport Authority submits that the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 14.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.30602 of 2023. PERUSED THE RECORD.
5. This Court opines that pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground to deny issuance of Passport or renewal of Passport and the right to personal liberty of a citizen would include not only the right to travel abroad but also the right to possess a Passport. 3
WP_31674_2023 SN,J
6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under:
"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
7. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, and in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others reported in 2019 (2) SCC Online SC 2048 very clearly observed that the right to travel abroad is a part of a personal liberty and the right to possess a passport etc., can only be curtailed in accordance with law only and not on the subjective satisfaction of anyone. The procedure must also be just, fair and reasonable.
8. Respondent No.2 cannot deny renewal of Passport on the ground that aforesaid Criminal Case is pending against him. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572 in "Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation" had an occasion to examine the provisions of 4 WP_31674_2023 SN,J the Passports Act, pendency of criminal cases and held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. Section 6.2 (f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections - 420, 468, 471 and 477A read with 120B of the IPC and also Section - 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Against which, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to renew/issue the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case.
9. In the judgment dated 08.04.2022 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP) in 5 WP_31674_2023 SN,J Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India and another at paras 4, 5 and 6, it is observed as under:
"This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No.1342 of 2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the "renewal" of the passport.
This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving "moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction 'and' makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post-conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case / cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport.
10. Taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad to consider the petitioner's explanation dated 30.08.2023 furnished by the petitioner in response to the letter dated 26.06.2023 6 WP_31674_2023 SN,J issued by the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad to the petitioner, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly taking into consideration the view taken by the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders pertaining to the request of the petitioner for reissuance of passport bearing No.E1816198 to the petitioner made vide petitioner's application dated 07.06.2023 and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA, J Dated: 16.11.2023 HK/YVKR