“Order Limiting Passport Validity Bereft Of Reasons”: Madras HC Directs Passport Office To Issue Regular Passport To Karti Chidambaram With 10-Year Validity

Justice Anita Sumanth also observed that though Karti Chidambaram had criminal cases pending against him, he had approached the court several times in the past seeking permission to travel and has been granted the same. The court also noted that even the Special Judge (PC Act) in Delhi had remarked that Karti had not breached any conditions imposed by the court thus far. The court was thus of the opinion that there did not impede granting the passport for 10 years.

“Thus, and also for the reason that the proposal to limit the period of passport is bereft of any reasoning, I see no impediment for the issuance of a passport with regular validity of 10 years and direct the respondent to do so forthwith. The passport, once received by the petitioner, shall immediately be surrendered to the Court in whose possession it has been thus far,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea by Karti Chidambaram seeking direction to the Regional Passport Officer in Chennai to reissue/renew his passport for 10 years. Chidambaram had argued that since an earlier request to re-issue passport with additional pages was also rejected by the Passport Officer prompting him to approach the High Court, in the present case he had sought positive directions apprehending that the passport authority would try to restrict his fundamental right at all cost.

It was argued that the re-issue and renewal of passports was governed by Section 9 of the Passport Act and did not provide rigorous conditions like that of fresh issue of passport.

On behalf of the authorities, it was submitted that there was no distinction in the scheme for fresh issue or re-issue/renewal of passports, and Section 9 only related to the forms that had to be filed for either type of passport. It was further pointed out that as per Section 6(2)(f) the passport authority could refuse to issue a passport or travel document if criminal proceedings were pending in a court in India.

The court agreed with this submission and noted that as per a notification of the Ministry of External Affairs, a passport could be issued despite the bar under Section 6(2)(f) upon permission being granted by the criminal court for the purpose specified by the court or if no period is specified, for a period of one year.

The court also agreed with the authorities and observed that Section 5 applied both to the new and the renewal of passports and the grounds set out under Section 6 (2) applied equally to both situations.

The court noted that as per Section 7(b) of the Passport Act, a passport could be issued for a shorter duration if the passport authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing, considers that the passport be issued for a shorter period. In the present case, however, the court observed that the authorities had not assigned any reasons for such curtailment.

Thus, considering it bereft of any reasoning, the court directed the authorities accordingly.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.P.Wilson Senior Counsel for Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.ARL.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General Assisted by Dr.G.Babu Senior Panel Counsel

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 155

Case Title: Karti P Chidambaram v The Regional Passport Officer Chennai

Case No: WP.No.1190 of 2024