Telangana High Court
Karunanidhi Madugula vs Union Of India on 10 January, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.675 OF 2024 ORDER:
Heard Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthi, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Mr. S. Janardhan Goud, learned
Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that, the petitioners
herein had applied for issuance of passport vide online
application bearing No.HY2075851416523 dated 06.10.2023 and
09.10.2023 to the 2nd respondent - Regional Passport Officer,
Secunderabad, along with all the requisite documents and fees
prescribed, with a request to issue the passports. The same was
not considered by the respondents on the ground that, the
petitioners are accused in criminal cases vide C.C. No.6225 of
2021 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners that petitioners herein are accused in C.C.
No.6225 of 2021 in Cr.No.114 of 2019 under Section 120(b),
419, 420 of IPC pending on the file of VII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Therefore, the petitioners 2 SN, J W.P. No.675 of 2024
sought to issue necessary directions to the respondents for
consideration of their application for issuance of passport.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends
that, respondents cannot refuse the issuance of passport of the
petitioners on the ground of the pendency of the aforesaid
criminal case against the petitioners and the said action of the
respondents is contrary to the procedure laid down under the
Passports Act, 1967.
PERUSED THE RECORD.
5. This court opines that pendency of criminal case against
the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny issuance of Passport to
the petitioners and the right to personal liberty would include not
only the right to travel abroad but also the right to possess a
Passport.
6. It is also relevant to note that the Respondents cannot
refuse the renewal of passport of the petitioners on the ground
of the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the
petitioners and the said action of the respondents is contrary to
the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967 and also
the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 3 SN, J W.P. No.675 of 2024
Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of
Investigation 1.
7. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in Vangala
Kasturi Rangacharyulu (supra) had an occasion to examine
the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, 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 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 issue the
1 . 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572 4 SN, J W.P. No.675 of 2024
passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to
the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C.
8. The Apex Court in another 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."
9. The Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India
reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248, held that no person can be
deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law
enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair,
reasonable and just procedure. Para 5 of the said
judgment is relevant and the same is extracted below:
"Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports, Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, 5 SN, J W.P. No.675 of 2024
procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law.
Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.
10. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment
dated 09.04.2019 reported in 2019 SCC online SC 2048 in
Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others it
is observed at para 5 as under:
"The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right."
11. Referring to the said principle and also the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in several other judgments,
considering the guidelines issued by the Union of India
from time to time, the Division Bench of High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Noor Paul Vs. Union
of India reported in 2022 SCC online P & H 1176 held that 6 SN, J W.P. No.675 of 2024
a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just,
fair and reasonable procedure.
12. In the judgment dated 08.04.2022 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court reported in 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP) in
Ganni Bhaskara Rao Vs. 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 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 I 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.
7
SN, J W.P. No.675 of 2024
13. In view of the above, this Court opines that mere
pendency of criminal case is not a ground to decline issuance of
passport. Further, the petitioners are ready to co-operate with
the trial Court in concluding trial. Therefore, the petitioners
herein sought issuance of necessary directions to respondents
for consideration of the application of the petitioners for issuance
of passport. Thus, on the ground of pendency of the above
criminal case, passport cannot be denied to the petitioners.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition
is disposed of at the admission stage, directing
respondent to consider the application bearing
No.HY207585141623 dated 06.10.2023 and 09.10.2023
submitted by the petitioners seeking to renew the
passport duly taking into consideration the view taken by
the High Courts and Supreme Court in all the Judgments
referred to and extracted above without reference to the
pendency of the proceedings in C.C. No.6225 of 2021,
subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking
along with an affidavit in C.C. No.6225 of 2021,
pending on the file of VII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, stating that 8 SN, J W.P. No.675 of 2024
they will not leave India during pendency of the said
C.C. without permission of the Court and that they
will co-operate with trial Court in concluding the
proceedings in the said C.C.;
ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the
trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the same
within two (02) weeks therefrom;
iii) The petitioner herein shall submit certified copy of
aforesaid undertaking before the Respondent-
Passport Officer for issuance of their passport;
iv) The Respondent-Passport Officer shall consider the
said application in the light of the observations made
by this Court herein as well as the contents of the
undertaking given by the petitioners for issuance of
passport in accordance with law, within two (03)
weeks from the date of said application;
v) On issuance of the Passport, the petitioner herein
shall deposit the original Passport before the trial
Court in C.C. No.6225 of 2021; and
vi) However, liberty is granted to the petitioners herein
to file an application before the trial Court seeking 9 SN, J W.P. No.675 of 2024
permission to travel aboard and it is for the trial
Court to consider the same in accordance with law.
However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
writ petition shall also stand closed.
__________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Date: 10th January, 2024 ksl 10 SN, J W.P. No.675 of 2024
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.675 of 2024
DATED:10.01.2024
ksl