Pendency of criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny passport

Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules in Favor of Right to Passport Renewal Amidst Pending Criminal Cases. Court affirms right to personal liberty and travel abroad, setting aside the arbitrary denial of passport renewal based on pending FIRs.

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the refusal to renew the passport of Sukhminder Singh Mann, an IPS officer, who faced denial based on the pendency of criminal cases. The Court, presided over by Justice Harsh Bunger, emphasized that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny passport facilities, as it impinges on the fundamental right to personal liberty, including the right to travel abroad.

The case arose when Mann's application for passport renewal was rejected by the Regional Passport Office, Amritsar, citing pending FIRs against him. The Passport Office's decision was based on an interpretation of a notification under the Passports Act, 1967, requiring explicit court permission for travel abroad. Despite obtaining trial court orders permitting passport renewal, the application was denied on grounds that the orders did not explicitly allow for travel abroad.

Justice Bunger, referencing landmark judgments such as "Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India" and "Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India," underscored that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court highlighted that procedural fairness must guide any restrictions on this right and that the notification in question should not be interpreted to arbitrarily deny passport renewal.

In his judgment, Justice Bunger directed Mann to submit an affidavit and undertaking before the trial courts, committing not to leave India without their permission. Upon compliance, the Regional Passport Office must process his renewal application. This decision aligns with previous judicial pronouncements that uphold the presumption of innocence and reject the notion that pending cases alone justify passport denial.

The ruling reiterates the judiciary's stance on safeguarding personal liberties against arbitrary administrative actions. It provides a procedural framework for individuals facing similar situations, ensuring that their right to travel and possess a passport remains protected despite pending legal proceedings.

Bottom Line:

Pendency of criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny passport facilities to an applicant, as the right to personal liberty includes the right to possess or hold a passport and the right to travel abroad.

Statutory provision(s): Articles 21, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India; Passports Act, 1967 Section 6(2)(f)

Sukhminder Singh Mann v. Union of India, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2801009