Court rules that mere registration of FIR does not justify passport impounding unless a court takes cognizance
In a significant ruling that reinforces the principles of personal liberty and natural justice, the Delhi High Court set aside the orders impounding the passport of Yogesh Raheja, citing the absence of cognizance taken by a competent court on pending criminal proceedings. The judgment, delivered by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, emphasized that the mere registration of a First Information Report (FIR) does not constitute the pendency of criminal proceedings under the Passports Act, 1967, unless the court has taken cognizance of the offence.
The case stemmed from the impounding of Raheja’s passport following the registration of FIR No. 603/2018. The authorities impounded the passport and rejected Raheja's appeal based on non-disclosure of the FIR during his passport renewal application. However, the Court observed that cognizance of the offence was taken only in February 2025, subsequent to the impounding order dated January 17, 2025.
The Court's decision aligns with an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of External Affairs in 2019, clarifying that criminal proceedings are deemed pending only when cognizance has been taken by a court. The Court further drew upon the Supreme Court’s stance in similar cases, reiterating that the right to hold a passport is integral to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Any State action impacting this right must adhere to reasonableness and natural justice.
The judgment underlines that indefinite or blanket restrictions on passport renewal can be disproportionate and unreasonable. This decision is expected to set a precedent in similar cases, reinforcing the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional rights against arbitrary administrative actions.
Bottom Line:
Passport Impounding - Mere registration of FIR does not amount to pendency of criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 6(2)(f) or Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, unless a competent court has taken cognizance of the offence. Orders impounding the passport and rejecting the appeal were held unsustainable as cognizance had not been taken at the time of impounding.
Statutory provision(s): Passports Act, 1967 Sections 6(2)(f), 10(3)(e); Constitution of India, 1950 Article 21
Yogesh Raheja v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2859648
