Denying 10-Year Passport Validity Without Cogent Reasons Amounts To Arbitrary Restriction On Unter-Trial’s Rights: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court held that denying a 10-year passport validity without cogent reasons amounts to an arbitrary restriction on the rights of an undertrial and undermines the principle of presumption of innocence.
The Court directed the competent authority to issue the pre-requisite no objection certificate (NOC) to a ‘kinnu’ farmer who was under trial on allegations under Sections 498-A, 406, and 323 of the IPC in a matrimonial dispute. the Jodhpur Bench reiterated that the right to travel was intrinsically contained in the right to earn a livelihood.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, “The restrictions imposed on his passport validity appear to pre-emptively punish the petitioner, undermining the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Denying a 10-year passport validity without cogent reasons amounts to an arbitrary restriction on this right and does not align with the principles of justice, equity, and fairness.”
Advocate Nishant Bora appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate H.S. Jodha represented the respondent.
The Petitioner sought directions from the Court to direct the State to enable him to apply for and renew his passport for a period of 10 years instead of 1 year.
The High Court referred to Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 (the Rules) which provides that a citizen is entitled to be issued a passport with a minimum validity of 10 years.
“Trite law it is that right to travel is intrinsically contained in the right to earn a livelihood. Courts have consistently upheld this as a fundamental right, subject of course to reasonable restrictions. The petitioner, who is primarily a farmer cultivating 'Kinnu' in his orchards, exports some of his produce to Saudi Arabia and has established business relations there. He seeks to travel abroad to further these business interests,” the Court remarked.
The Court stated that it was an acknowledged position that a short-term passport validity posed practical difficulties in obtaining visas from certain countries. “Whether the passport is valid for one year or ten years does not materially affect the allegations against the petitioner regarding potential absconding,” the Bench explained. Therefore, the Bench stated that the renewal of the petitioner’s passport for the full 10-year duration would prejudice the case of the complainant.
“Moreover, the petitioner has not been convicted of any offense; he is merely facing charges. Under the law, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” the Court remarked.
The Bench also pointed out that there was no substantive evidence or reasonable apprehension to prove that the petitioner was a flight risk or that he intended to abscond from the legal proceedings.
“As an agriculturist involved in the export of 'Kinnu' produce to Saudi Arabia, the petitioner’s ability to travel internationally, be it Saudi Arabia or any other country, is directly linked to his livelihood and economic stability. There is no gainsaying that restriction of a one-year passport validity places an undue burden on his business operations, affecting not only his income but also the livelihoods of those employed under him,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court held, “The issuance of a one-year passport, in this case, appears to lack any statutory backing and thus, contravenes the provisions of the Passport Rules.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Abhayjeet Singh v. State Of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:36403)
