Denying 10-Yrs Passport Validity To Undertrial Lacks Statutory Backing, Undermines Presumption Of Innocence: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that reducing the validity period of passport from prescribed 10 years to only 1 year for an under-trial person without cogent reasons amounts to arbitrary restriction on the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined under Article 21 and was violative of principles of justice, equity and fairness.The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition filed...
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that reducing the validity period of passport from prescribed 10 years to only 1 year for an under-trial person without cogent reasons amounts to arbitrary restriction on the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined under Article 21 and was violative of principles of justice, equity and fairness.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition filed by an individual who was charged under IPC for cruelty against wife and had applied for his passport. After much difficulty the passport was issued to the petitioner but with a validity of only one year. Hence, the petition was filed by the individual, against the State Government seeking issuance of passport with a full 10 year validity as prescribed under the Passport Rules, 1980 (“the Rules”).
The Court highlighted the fact that the petitioner was a farmer cultivating produce to be exported to Saudi Arabia, and hence, he had to travel abroad to further these business interests. In this background, the Court observed that right to travel was intrinsically contained in right to earn a livelihood which was a fundamental right. And in light of the known fact that a short-term passport presented difficulties in obtaining visas of certain nations, the one-year passport was an undue burden on the petitioner's business operations.
“As an agriculturist involved in the export of 'Kinnu' produce to Saudi Arabia, the petitioner's ability to travel internationally, be it Saudi Arabia or any other country, is directly linked to his livelihood and economic stability. There is no gainsaying that restriction of a one-year passport validity places an undue burden on his business operations, affecting not only his income but also the livelihoods of those employed under him.”
Furthermore, the Court also opined that the petition was not a convict but an under-trial and reducing the validity period of his passport appeared to pre-emptively punishing the petitioner and thus undermining the presumption of innocence captured under Article 21.
The Court observed there was no substantive evidence or reasonable apprehension put forth before the Court that the petitioner posed any flight risk and hence, issuing a 10-year passport did not prejudice the respondent or the complainant or impeded the ongoing criminal proceedings in any manner.
The Court also pointed out the absence of any such provision of reducing passport's validity period for under-trial individuals, under the Passport Act, 1967 or the Rules, and held that the act of the State Government lacked any statutory backing and was violative of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
“Requiring the petitioner to frequently renew his passport every year not only places an undue burden on him but also on judicial and administrative resources, leading to unnecessary litigation and wastage of public funds and time.”
Accordingly, the petition was accepted and the State Government was directed to issue the required NOC for the issuance of 10-year passport to the petitioner.
Title: Abhayjeet Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 257
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Nishant Bora
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. H.S. Jodha