Recently, the Rajasthan High Court intervened after a Kota trial court refused to grant a No Objection Certificate for renewal of a 66-year-old man’s passport solely because 23 criminal cases were pending against him. The case placed under scrutiny a crucial constitutional question: can an accused person, who has not yet been convicted, be denied the ability to travel abroad merely due to pending prosecutions? The High Court examined whether such a refusal violated the protections guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The controversy began when the Petitioner approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota, seeking permission for renewal of his passport so he could travel abroad to meet his children residing overseas. The Magistrate, however, rejected the request, citing the pendency of nearly 23 criminal cases involving allegations such as cheating and forgery. Challenging that decision before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, counsel for the petitioner argued that none of the cases had resulted in a conviction and that the denial of passport renewal effectively curtailed his personal liberty without legal justification. The State, while acknowledging the pendency of cases, also conceded that no conviction had been recorded against the petitioner till date. The Court closely examined Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, along with a series of Supreme Court and High Court precedents dealing with the right to travel abroad and renewal of passports during pending criminal proceedings.
Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali came down heavily on the reasoning adopted by the trial court, observing that criminal proceedings alone could not become an automatic ground to block renewal of a passport. Emphasising the constitutional protection of personal liberty, the Court reiterated that “the right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.” The Court further relied on the settled principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, noting that “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.” The bench found that the Magistrate had ignored the statutory framework and binding precedents governing passport renewal in such situations.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed the competent passport authority to process the petitioner’s renewal application within 30 days in accordance with Section 5 of the Passports Act, without being influenced by the earlier rejection order.
Case Title: Surendra Pal Singh Sahni Vs. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8733/2024
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Suresh Kumar Sahni, Adv. Ram Mohan Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent: PP Onkar Singh Rajpurohit
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
