Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has clarified that passport authorities have no jurisdiction to determine whether an individual facing criminal proceedings has the right to travel abroad, holding that such authority rests exclusively with the trial court.
Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee, while hearing a petition filed by Dhaval Sureshbhai Makwana, directed the passport authorities to issue him a fresh passport valid for 10 years, notwithstanding the pendency of criminal proceedings against him.
In its order dated January 5, the Court observed:
“The passport authorities do not have any authority to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad. Such authority is vested solely in the trial court, which may impose appropriate conditions if an application seeking permission to travel abroad is made.”
Key Findings of the Court
The High Court laid down the following principles:
- Passport authorities are limited to issuing or renewing passports in accordance with statutory provisions and judicial orders.
- Decisions regarding whether an accused person may leave India, and the conditions governing such travel, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
- Once a competent court permits the issuance or renewal of a passport, passport authorities cannot impose independent or additional restrictions.
- The petitioner is entitled to a passport valid for 10 years under the Passports Act, 1967, and the relevant rules.
- Any application for issuance of a passport must be decided expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.
- If the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he must seek prior permission from the appropriate trial court, which remains free to impose conditions it deems fit.
The Court also referred to a 1993 notification issued under Sections 22 and 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, which allows issuance of passports to individuals facing criminal proceedings, subject to court permission.
Additionally, the Court relied on a Bombay High Court judgment dated March 13, 2014, which held that once a court permits issuance or renewal of a passport, passport authorities are bound to act accordingly. While not binding, the Gujarat High Court noted that the ruling had strong persuasive value and squarely applied to the present case.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking directions for issuance of a fresh passport. In 2022, a criminal case was registered against him under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Following investigation, the police filed a closure report stating that no offence was made out. This report was accepted by a magistrate’s court on November 9, 2022. However, the order was later challenged, and a criminal revision was allowed by the sessions court. A connected petition filed by a co-accused is currently pending before the High Court.
Submissions by Counsel
Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Dharnesh R. Patel, argued that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings could not justify refusal of a passport, particularly in the absence of any judicial order restraining its issuance.
On the other hand, Advocate Pradip D. Bhate, appearing for the State, submitted that individuals facing criminal proceedings must obtain prior permission from the concerned court before a passport is issued. He also pointed out that the petitioner had not yet formally applied to the passport authority.
After considering the submissions, the High Court allowed the petition and issued the above directions
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.