Allahabad High Court Issues Modalities On Intimation Of Police Reports To Passport Applicants With Pending Criminal Proceedings
The Allahabad High Court has issued modalities to be followed by Regional Passport Offices in the State of Uttar Pradesh on intimation of police reports to applicants with pending criminal 'proceedings' seeking for issuance of fresh passport, renewal or re-issue of passports.Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for situations where issuance of passport to a citizen can be...
The Allahabad High Court has issued modalities to be followed by Regional Passport Offices in the State of Uttar Pradesh on intimation of police reports to applicants with pending criminal 'proceedings' seeking for issuance of fresh passport, renewal or re-issue of passports.
Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for situations where issuance of passport to a citizen can be refused. Section 6(2)(f) contemplates refusal of grant of passport where proceedings are pending in criminal court are pending against any alleged offence committed by the applicant. Section 10(3)(e) gives power to the passport authorities to revoke or impound a passport for the same condition as Section 6(2)(f).
A Government Order dated 25.08.1993 issued by Ministry of External Affairs whereby exemption was granted to those citizens of India to obtain passport against whom “proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India.” This was done subject to conditions laid down in the Government Order.
While giving the word 'proceeding' appearing in Sections 6 (2) (f) and 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 a wider interpretation, the bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla held,
“Therefore, we are inclined to read the word 'proceeding' used in Sections 6 (2) (f) and 10 (3) (e) of the Act to allow minimum scrutiny/application of mind by the jurisdictional Criminal Court under whose territorial jurisdiction a criminal investigation or enquiry or trial may be pending, as may be the case. Thus, where an offence may be pending investigation at a Police Station, the Court/Judicial Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over that Police Station may grant permission to a person accused of that criminal offence, to travel abroad.”
The Court further held that in case of only Non-Cognizable Reports being reported against applicants, the applications for issuance of fresh passport, renewal, or re-issue of passport must not be kept pending.
“Passports being mandatory for foreign travel that may be necessary to be undertaken by a citizen for variety of reasons- from casual/avoidable to emergent/non-avoidable, a citizen sensitive and efficient Passport issuance measure is required to allow the citizens to exercise their fundamental right of liberty, without having to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Petitioners, citizen of India, sought issuance of fresh passport, renewal, or re-issue of passport. The applications were kept pending by the passport authorities due to pendency of criminal investigation against such persons at various stages, from registration of FIRs, cognizance being taken by Courts to only Non- Cognizable Reports being recorded in some cases.
The Court observed that though a coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court in Basoo Yadav Vs. Union of India and 4 Others had directed to the Director General of Police to instruct his officers to give a report with regard to the pendency of reports in non-cognizable cases after appropriate and proper application of mind, there was a large influx of cases of pendency of application by passport authorities for pendency of criminal investigation.
“Unless refusal of Passport arises on objective consideration of relevant material, no real litigation should ever arise. Demand of transparency, efficiency and good administration, in the frame work of e-governance should ensure that the Regional Passport Authority works in tandem with the State authorities and vice- versa, such that any application for grant of a Passport made by an individual citizen is necessarily dealt with in a transparent, efficient and time bound manner such that the status and result of such applications is visible and made known to the individual citizen/applicant in real time. It may allow him to pursue his application with purpose as may further enable that application to reach its fair end,” observed the Court.
The Court observed that the Regional Passport Office, Lucknow who was maintaining the e-portal was only providing frugal information regarding the pendency of the applications to the applicants. The Court observed that the inadequacies in communication between the police authorities and the Regional Passport Office was leading to increase in “fruitless litigation” before the High Court.
The Court observed that the word 'proceeding' appearing in Section 6(2)(f) and Section 10(3)(e) was not defined in the Passports Act. The Court held that the word has a wider connotation to include stages preceding a criminal trial.
“Then, the further phrase used – "in relation of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant", used to describe the nature of 'proceeding' that may give rise to the statutory disability created under the aforesaid provisions of law, also suggests conscious widening of the disability contemplated. It is so because the words "in relation to" clearly refer to other than 'trial' proceedings. To infer that those proceedings may arise at post cognizance stage would be to attribute impermissible superfluity to the words consciously used by the legislature.”
The Court held that 'proceedings' is being given wider interpretation to protect the right of citizens to travel abroad. However, the Court noted that the right to travel must also not allow a person accused of criminal offence be allowed to leave the country without information or knowledge of his intent to leave the country to the competent court of criminal jurisdiction.
The Court held that travel being a basic human right cannot declare regulations placed on it as unconstitutional. The Court hold that a direction to the competent court to apply its mind to application for issuance of fresh passport, renewal, or re-issue of passport does not cause any injury to any applicant. The Court observed that the same also prevents an applicant accused of heinous crime from escaping the criminal trial.
“Plainly, the object of the provision demands purposive construction to be made. It dictates - no hyper-technical distinction be drawn between a person facing a criminal trial before a competent Criminal Court and a person who may be facing a criminal investigation when both such persons seek to travel abroad.”
Accordingly, the Court directed that the details of NCR and FIR be clearly mentioned along with the provisions of law under which the case has been registered and the details of the competent court dealing with the case of the applicant be contained in reports submitted by police authorities to the Regional Passport Offices.
The Court directed that the Regional Passport Offices in State of UP must make such minimum information available on their web-portal for applicants as well as in physical form within a week from the receipt of such information. In case of registered FIRs, the web-portal is to indicate to the applicant to apply and obtain permission from the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction before his application may be processed. The Court directed the Union of India to upgrade the infrastructure to facilitate the directions issued by the Court.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union Of India And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 144 [WRIT - C No. - 41540 of 2023]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 144