Passport Authority Not Bound To Impound Passports On Pendency Of Criminal Cases, S.10(3)(e) Uses 'May': Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, it is not mandatory for the passport authority to impound passport of a person against whom criminal case(s) are pending. It has been held that the word “may” in Section 10(3) gives discretion to the passport authority to consider the case on its merits and record its satisfaction in writing if passport needs to be impounded.
Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 provides for situations in which passport authority may vary, impound or revoke passport and other travel documents which have been issued. Sub-section (3)(e) of Section 10 provides that passport authority “may” impound or cause to revoke/impound a passport if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel document are pending before a criminal court in India.
The bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla held that
“the legislature under Section 10 (3) (e) of the Passports Act, 1967 had deliberately used word 'may' meaning thereby that in the eventualities enumerated under Section 3 of the Passports Act, 1967 of the passport officer by recording reasons can impound passport but it is not necessary that in every case falling under Section 3 the passport officer is mandatorily required to impound the passport.”
Factual Background
Petitioner was issued a passport on 20.08.2014, valid upto 19.08.2024. Petitioner was residing in Saudi Arabia and was doing a private job. In 2023, his wife filed a complaint under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ambedkar Nagar.
After chargesheet was issued, the petitioner challenged the proceedings before the High Court wherein interim stay was ordered. Meanwhile, Regional Passport Officer, Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow issued a communication to the petitioner stating that his passport will be impounded. Petitioner challenged the said communication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel for petitioner argued that under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, the usage of word 'may' gives discretion to the authority to impound passport. It was argued that the section does not mandate impounding of passport in every case where criminal proceedings are pending. It was stated that the facts and circumstances of each and every case must be considered, and satisfaction and reasons must be recorded in writing for impounding or proposed impounding of passport.
Per contra, counsel for respondents argued that the decision to impound passport has been taken on grounds of pending criminal cases against the petitioner and the same has been done in accordance with law.
High Court Verdict
Discussing Section 10(3) and 10(3)(e), the Court held that the legislative intent was to give discretionary power to the passport authority for impounding/revoking passports on grounds of pendency of criminal cases. It was held that the passport authority must record reasons and satisfaction that impounding of passport is necessary to ensure the trail proceedings are not delayed.
“The legislature under Section 10 (3) (e) has given power/discretion to the passport authority that if he is satisfied then he can impound the passport of a person on the ground of pending proceedings in relation to an offence in the criminal court, therefore prior to passing the order of impounding passport, the passport officer after considering the facts and circumstances of each case has to record reasons to arrive at a conclusion that due to pending criminal proceedings in a criminal court, the passport holder may misuse the passport for avoiding his appearance before the court and can delay the conclusion of the proceedings.”
The Court relied on the decision of its coordinate bench in Mohd. Farid Vs. Union of India & Anr., where it was held that passport may be impounded in cases where there is apprehension that the person will misuse the same to avoid criminal trial. It was held that mere pendency of criminal case is not sufficient for impounding/revoking passport, reasons ought to be recorded for doing so.
The Court observed that the criminal cases filed against the petitioner were arising from matrimonial discord and the same had been stayed by the High Court. It was observed that the passport authority had not recorded any reasons as to possible misuse of the passport by the petitioner and had not considered the facts of the criminal cases before passing the impugned communication regarding impounding of petitioner's passport.
Accordingly, the order impounding petitioner's passport was quashed.
Case Title: Mohammad Umar v. Union Of India And 2 Others [WRIT - C No. - 20480 of 2024]