Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Santhosh Beejadi Srinivasa, is an employee working as Senior Manager (Process and Planning) at Mann+Hummel Filter Private Limited, Tumakuru. He was issued a normal passport valid for ten years from 11-04-2014 to 10-04-2024. During the validity period, he became embroiled in a criminal case registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 182 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He is arrayed as accused No.2, with his father and wife as accused Nos.1 and 3. The proceedings are pending trial in S.C.No.28 of 2017 before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. When the crime was registered, the petitioner applied for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), and the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 27-04-2015, granted bail with conditions, including that the petitioner must obtain prior permission from the court for any travel. The petitioner has been complying with this condition. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for re-issuance of his passport, but the Regional Passport Office issued an acknowledgment dated 20-09-2023 declining to issue a normal validity passport for ten years, instead offering a passport with limited validity. The petitioner challenged this acknowledgment by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The legal issues considered were whether the Passport Authority can refuse to issue a normal validity passport to an accused person pending trial, and whether the conditions imposed by the trial court affect the passport issuance. The petitioner argued that the Passport Authority cannot deny a full validity passport based solely on pending criminal proceedings, as the trial court has already permitted travel subject to conditions. The respondents contended that the passport issuance is governed by the Passports Act, 1967, and the authority has discretion to impose restrictions. The court analyzed the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, particularly Section 6(2)(f) which bars issuance of passport to a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years, unless five years have elapsed since the sentence. The court noted that the petitioner is not convicted but only an accused, and the trial court has not prohibited travel but only required prior permission. The court held that the Passport Authority cannot refuse to issue a normal validity passport solely on the ground of pending criminal proceedings, as there is no legal bar under the Act. The court directed the respondents to issue a normal validity passport for ten years to the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to obtain prior permission from the trial court for any travel abroad, as per the bail conditions. The court also observed that the Passport Authority's action was arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Headnote
A) Passport Law - Issuance of Passport to Accused - Section 6(2)(f) Passports Act, 1967 - The Passport Authority cannot refuse to issue a normal validity passport solely on the ground that the applicant is an accused in a criminal case, unless there is a specific order from a court prohibiting issuance or the applicant is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years. The authority must consider the bail conditions and the fact that the trial court has permitted travel subject to prior permission. (Paras 1-10) B) Passport Law - Validity of Passport - Section 10(3)(e) Passports Act, 1967 - The Passport Authority has the power to impound or revoke a passport, but this power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The authority must follow the procedure under the Act and cannot impose a shorter validity period based on pending criminal proceedings without a legal basis. (Paras 11-15) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Travel - Article 21 Constitution of India - The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, and any restriction must be reasonable and in accordance with law. The Passport Authority's decision to issue a passport with limited validity (one year) instead of the normal ten years is an unreasonable restriction, especially when the trial court has already imposed conditions for travel. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Passport Authority can refuse to issue a normal validity passport (10 years) to a person who is an accused in a criminal case, when the trial court has granted bail with conditions permitting travel subject to prior permission.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned acknowledgment dated 20-09-2023 is quashed. The respondents are directed to issue a normal validity passport for ten years to the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to obtain prior permission from the trial court for any travel abroad, as per the bail conditions imposed by the Sessions Court.
Law Points
- Passport issuance
- Criminal proceedings
- Right to travel
- Section 6(2)(f) Passports Act
- 1967
- Section 10(3)(e) Passports Act
- Impounding of passport
- Bail conditions
- Prior permission for travel
