No Statutory Bar On Courts To Give NOC For Issuance Of Passport To Travel Abroad: Allahabad HC Allows Actress Sapna Chaudhary's Plea
The Allahabad High Court allowed artist/actress Sapna Chaudhary to apply for renewal/re-issuance of her passport stating that there was no statutory bar on courts to grant NOC for the issuance of a passport to travel abroad.
The actress had filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking permission/no objection (NOC) to get her passport renewed for a period of 10 years arguing that the said renewal was required for her professional commitments as she frequently travelled abroad for performances and events.
The Court explained that a passport or travel document of a person facing trial can be “refused by the authority concerned during pendency of his criminal case, but there is no statutory bar for giving no objection by the court concerned.”
A Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed, “Right to travel abroad is a part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and in addition thereto a careful reading of provisions of the Passport Act and the Notification dated 25.08.1993 alongwith the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 in the light of it's legislative backgrounds as mentioned above, it is clear that passport or travel document of a person, who is facing trial can be refused by the authority concerned during pendency of his criminal case, but there is no statutory bar for giving no objection by the court concerned.”
Advocate Keshav Prasad represented the applicant, while DSGI (Sr. Advocate) Surya Bhan Pandey appeared for the opposite party.
Since she was required to move an application seeking permission to travel abroad every time she travelled considering an FIR registered against her under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., the actress claimed to be incurring loss in business as well as income.
The Court stressed the fundamental right to travel abroad as guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. It reiterated the principles established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 (1) SCC 248 where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that having a passport was a fundamental right of a citizen of India and a citizen can not be deprived of the same.
“Some time on account of enmity or ill will one party enmesh the other party in a frivolous criminal case to settle his personal score, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to consider all aspects of the matter and surrounding circumstances while granting or refusing the no objection for renewal or reissue of passport or travel documents by the court concerned or by the authorities concerned and the trial in the above case is not likely to conclude very soon,” the Court noted.
Considering the larger mandate of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, the Court reversed the trial court’s order which quashed the application for renewal/re-issue of the passport of the artist.
“The applicant shall inform and take permission from the trial court concerned before going abroad and she shall appear before the trial Court on the date fixed as directed by the trial Court and she shall be bound by the terms and conditions imposed by the trial court,” the Court directed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application.
Cause Title: Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary v. State Of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:28406)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Keshav Prasad, Priti Singh, Pramod K. Tiwari and Sanklan Porwal
Opposite Party: DSGI (Sr. Advocate) Surya Bhan Pandey; Advocates Varun Pandey; AGA Ashok Kumar Srivastava