Right To Personal Liberty Includes Right To Possess/Hold Passport; Pendency Of Criminal Case No Ground To Deny Passport Facilities: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court held that the pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to deny passport facilities since the right to personal liberty includes the right to possess or hold a passport.
The Court granted the petitioner's passport renewal despite previous denial under Sections 5(2)(c) and 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 (the Act), in view of the pendency of a Court case for the offences under Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Surepalli Nanda observed, “Respondents cannot refuse the renewal of passport of the petitioner on the ground of the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the petitioner and the said action of the respondents is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Passports Act, 1967.”
Advocate S. Nagesh Reddy represented the petitioner, while Advocate A.S. Vasudevan appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner had filed an application for his passport renewal. While processing the request, the Passport Office refused passport services to the petitioner on the grounds of the adverse police report.
The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated in the case and underlined his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, particularly as the matter concerned immovable property, ensuring his accessibility to the authorities.
The Court held that “pendency of criminal case cannot be the ground to deny passport facilities to the petitioner since petitioner’s right to personal liberty not only includes petitioner’s right to travel abroad, but also petitioner’s right to possess or hold a passport.”
The Court remarked that the Passport Office could not refuse the renewal of the passport of the petitioner on the ground of the pendency of a criminal case as the said action was contrary to the procedure laid down under the Act and by the Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572.
The Supreme Court in the said case had clarified that refusal of a passport can be only in cases where an applicant was convicted during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years.
Consequently, the Passport Office was directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner for a period of ten years under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Venkata Siva Kumar Yadhanapudi v. The Union of India & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate S. Nagesh Reddy
Respondents: Advocate A.S. Vasudevan
