Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Cyrus Keki Balsara, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Regional Passport Office, Mumbai (respondent no.2) to issue a fresh passport based on his online application dated 28 August 2023. The petitioner had been issued a passport on 28 May 2013, which expired on 27 May 2023. He applied for renewal, but the passport authority refused to process the application on the ground that criminal proceedings were pending against him. The petitioner contended that the refusal was arbitrary and violative of his fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21. The court examined the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, particularly Section 6(2)(f), which allows refusal of passport if the applicant has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The court held that this provision applies only after a conviction, not when proceedings are merely pending. The court also distinguished between the power to refuse renewal under Section 6 and the power to impound a passport under Section 10, noting that the latter requires a separate procedure. The court directed the respondent to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner within four weeks, subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking to appear before the trial court as and when required. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Passport Law - Renewal of Passport - Pending Criminal Proceedings - Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 - The court held that the passport authority cannot refuse renewal of passport solely on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant, as Section 6(2)(f) applies only after a conviction by a court in India. The court directed the respondent to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner within four weeks, subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking to appear before the trial court as and when required. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Travel - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court emphasized that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, and the passport authority cannot arbitrarily refuse renewal of passport without any legal impediment. The court observed that the pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disentitle a person from obtaining a passport. (Paras 5-8) C) Passport Law - Impounding of Passport - Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967 - The court noted that the power to impound a passport under Section 10 is distinct from the power to refuse renewal under Section 6. The court held that the passport authority cannot refuse renewal on grounds that would justify impounding, without following the procedure under Section 10. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Regional Passport Office can refuse to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner solely on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending against him, without there being any conviction or order of arrest warrant.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and directed respondent no.2 to issue a fresh passport to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order, subject to the petitioner furnishing an undertaking to appear before the trial court as and when required.
Law Points
- Passport renewal cannot be refused solely on ground of pending criminal proceedings
- Passport Act
- 1967 Section 6(2)(f) applies only after conviction
- Article 21 right to travel
- Article 226 jurisdiction
