Authority Can Refuse Passport/Travel Document During Pendency Of Criminal Case; But There's No Statutory Bar On Court To Give No Objection: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court observed that the passport or travel document of a person can be refused by the authority during the pendency of his criminal case, but there is no statutory bar on the Court for giving no objection.
The Court said that no hard and fast straight jacket formula can be laid down regarding issuance of permission or giving no objection by the Court concerned for issuance of passport.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned order and direct Respondent No. 4 to re-issue/renew the passport of the Applicant.
The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed, “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. No hard and fast straight jacket formula can be laid down regarding issuance of permission or giving no objection by the court concerned for issuance of passport.”
Advocate Osama Ahmad Abbasi appeared for the Appellant and CSC Devrishi Kumar appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Applicant who was working in Saudi Arabia returned to India in January 2020 and was stuck in India due to COVID-19. An FIR was filed against him over a minor dispute leading to charges under various IPC sections in which he secured bail. He sought a no-objection certificate (NOC) for passport renewal from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) who denied it. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
The Court said that under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the citizens of the country are entitled to a passport. The Court went in to mention the Supreme Court decision in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India 1978 (1) SCC 248 held that having a passport is a fundamental right of the citizen of India and a citizen can not be deprived of such fundamental right.
“It is always discretion of the court concerned and depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, act and conduct of the accused as well as nature of alleged offence committed by him/her and stage of trial, etc.”, the Court remarked on giving no objection by the Court for issuance of passport.
“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 added.
The Court said that the trial court had completely ignored the Notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs dated August 25, 1993, as well as the Office Memorandum dated October 10, 2019, while passing the impugned order.
Accordingly, the Court set aside and reversed the impugned order by means of which the application for renewal/re-issue of the passport of the Applicant was rejected.
Finally, the Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Fareed Alam v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:54426)
