Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Kasturi Rajupeta, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, challenging the endorsement dated 06.09.2021 issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Bengaluru (Respondent No.3), which rejected her application for renewal of her passport bearing No. Z2247510. The petitioner's passport had expired and she sought its renewal. The Regional Passport Officer rejected the application solely on the ground that criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner, without providing any further reasons or details. The petitioner contended that the rejection was arbitrary and violative of her fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution. She argued that the Passport Authority must consider her application on its merits and cannot refuse renewal merely because of pending criminal cases, especially when no reasons were recorded as required under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General, defended the rejection, submitting that the Passport Authority has the discretion to refuse renewal if criminal proceedings are pending, and that the petitioner had not disclosed the pendency in her application. The High Court examined the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, particularly Section 6(2)(f) which empowers the Passport Authority to refuse renewal if the applicant is involved in criminal proceedings, but only after recording reasons in writing. The court also referred to the fundamental right to travel abroad as recognized in Article 21 and the requirement that any restriction must be by procedure established by law. The court held that the impugned endorsement was unsustainable as it did not contain any reasons for refusal, and the mere mention of pending criminal proceedings was insufficient. The court set aside the endorsement and directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider the petitioner's application afresh, in accordance with law, and pass a reasoned order within four weeks. The court clarified that if the authority intends to impound the passport, it must follow the procedure under Section 10 of the Act, which provides for an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Passport Law - Renewal of Passport - Pending Criminal Proceedings - Right to Travel - The petitioner sought renewal of her passport which was rejected by the Regional Passport Officer citing pending criminal proceedings without assigning any reasons. The High Court held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and can be restricted only by procedure established by law. The Passport Authority must consider the application on its own merits and cannot refuse renewal solely on the ground of pendency of criminal cases without recording reasons as required under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. The impugned endorsement was set aside and the respondent was directed to consider the application afresh. (Paras 1-10) B) Passport Law - Impounding of Passport - Opportunity of Hearing - The court observed that if the Passport Authority intends to impound a passport, it must follow the procedure under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 which mandates an opportunity of hearing. Mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically justify refusal of renewal or impounding. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Regional Passport Officer can refuse renewal of passport solely on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant, without recording any reasons or providing an opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition in part. The impugned endorsement dated 06.09.2021 was set aside. The Regional Passport Officer was directed to consider the petitioner's application for renewal of passport afresh, in accordance with law, and pass a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The court clarified that if the authority intends to impound the passport, it must follow the procedure under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967.
Law Points
- Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21
- Passport renewal cannot be denied solely due to pending criminal proceedings
- Passport Authority must consider application on merits
- Section 6(2)(f) of Passports Act
- 1967 requires recording of reasons for refusal
- Impounding of passport requires opportunity of hearing
