Passport Authority Can't Refuse Renewal/ Re-Issue Citing Pending Criminal Investigation Where Cognizance Is Not Yet Taken: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that Passport authorities cannot deny re-issuance/renewal of passport to those passport holders against whom pending criminal cases are at the stage of investigation, and the concerned court has not yet taken cognizance of the offence.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed the authorities to act in accordance with the clarification issued...
The Karnataka High Court has held that Passport authorities cannot deny re-issuance/renewal of passport to those passport holders against whom pending criminal cases are at the stage of investigation, and the concerned court has not yet taken cognizance of the offence.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed the authorities to act in accordance with the clarification issued vide Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs wherein it is clarified that mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) (of the Passport Act) and that criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before any Court of law and the court has taken cognizance of the same.
The bench said “it is expected of the Passport Authorities to act in accordance with the clarification as obtaining in the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 and not drive every passport holder to knock at the doors of this Court, for redressal of their grievance.”
Petitioner Sharath Chandrasekhar claiming to be a lawyer had submitted an application seeking renewal/re-issuance of passport in consideration whereof a police verification process was undertaken when it was discovered that petitioner is embroiled in three proceedings pending before the concerned jurisdictional Courts at Lucknow.
Thereafter, petitioner received a letter from the Regional Passport Office informing him that they have received an adverse verification report from the police. Petitioner responded to the notice enclosing all the documents as were sought for but since no response was forthcoming, instant proceedings came to be instituted.
The Central Government counsel opposed the plea by submitting that there are three proceedings pending against the petitioner and therefore, the passport cannot be issued.
The bench noted that Section 6(2)(f) mandates that a passport or a travel document can be denied to a holder of the passport, if any proceeding is pending, against him before any criminal court in India.
Then it referred to the clarification issued by the Ministry and said “The clarification is rendered by the Ministry of External Affairs that mere filing of FIR and cases under investigation would not come under the purview Section 6(2)(f) of the Act and the criminal proceedings would only be considered when pending, and the concerned Court has taken cognizance of the offence, which would presuppose that the charge sheet has been filed by the Officer in-charge of a police station.”
Accordingly it allowed the petition and directed the authorities to consider the application submitted by the petitioner seeking renewal / re-issuance of the passport within an outer limit of two weeks from today or if not earlier.
Appearance: Senior Advocate Dhananjay Joshi for Advocate Kashyap N Naik for Petitioner.
Central Government Counsel Priyanka S Bhat for respondent.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 98
Case Title: Sharath Chandrasekhar AND Union of India
Case No: Writ Petition No 18066 OF 2023