Madras High Court Quashes Order Shortening Validity Of Karti Chidambaram's Passport

The Madras High Court has held that when an application is made for the renewal/ re-issue of a passport, the authority cannot shorten the duration or validity of the same without following Sections 7 and 10 of Passports Act, 1967.

Holding thus, Justice M. Govindaraj directed the Passport Authority to re-issue a passport to Congress MP Karthi P. Chidambaram, which shall be valid for a period for which his passport was otherwise valid.

MP for Sivaganga Constituency in Tamil Nadu, Chidambaram had applied for an additional booklet of passport upon exhaustion of the existing one. Since a criminal case is pending against him, the Regional Passport Office had ordered to limit the validity of the reissued passport till March 4, 2022, instead of 10 years.

After hearing both parties, the single bench noted that the order shortening the period of validity without following Section 10 or Section 7 of the Act and without recording suitable reasons is not sustainable in law.

[Section 7 prescribes that a passport may be issued for a shorter period than the prescribed period- (a) if the person by whom it is required so desires; or (b) if the passport authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing to the applicant, considers in any case that the passport or travel document should be issued for a shorter period.

Therefore, the court directed the passport office to reissue the passport with the existing period of validity or for 10 years as per Rule 12 of the Rules and Regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

For reaching the said conclusion, the court extensively relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in Narendra K.Ambwani v. Union of India & Ors. (2014).

"...Therefore, it is clear that permission to travel abroad and renewal or reissue of passport are two different aspects to be dealt with by different provisions of the Act. In normal circumstances, on exhaustion pages, issue of additional booklet or reissue of Passport will not attract Section 6 (2) (f) [refusal to issue passport due to pendency of criminal case in India] or any Notification issued thereof, much less, without taking recourse to the relevant provisions [Sections 7 &10] intended by the lawmakers there for. It has to be made as per Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, 1980 [Duration of Validity of an Ordinary Passport is 10 Years] , and the passport authority shall issue a passport for the normal period, the court observed.

The court also clarified that this does not negate the requirement of an applicant, who shall approach the Magistrate concerned, for getting permission to travel abroad.

Referring to Section 7 of the Act, the court remarked that it lays down the duration of passport and the power of the passport authority to issue the passport for a shorter period, given that the reason for cutting short the validity is communicated to the applicant. Similarly, Section 10 deals with the variation, impounding or suspension of passport by adhering to the principles of natural justice, the court further added. The Passport Authority is required to record the reasons for an order under Section 10 and furnish a copy to the holder of passport.

Sections 5 and 6 deal with the issuance of a passport and the grounds on which the passport authority refuses to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country. 

"In the present case, the holder of the Passport is a Member of Parliament and he has not breached any conditions imposed on him. The respondent has not produced any materials that he was compelled to take action against the petitioner that his conduct may affect Sovereignty and integrity or Security or friendly relations of India or in the public interest. In that event, the exercise of power without taking recourse to Sec 7 or 10 of the Act cannot be sustained", the court noted.

With reference to an exception of public interest to Section 6(2)(f), Government Notification GSR 570 E under S.22 of the Act, dated 25th August 1993, states that when there is a court order permitting foreign travel during the pendency of a criminal case, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year if the court has not specified the validity period of the passport so issued. 

The court majorly relied on Madras High Court judgment in Ashok Muthana v. Regional Passport Officer Chennai and Anr. (2014) to underscore that the petitioner did not seek permission to depart India but only the reissue of passport for additional booklet which is originally valid till 2024.

"G.S.R. 570(E) applies to a situation where a passport holder against whom a criminal case is pending and who produces orders from the court concerned permitting him to depart from India, exempts the operation of Section 6 (2) (f) and lays down other conditions specified therein. As discussed in Ashok Muthana's judgment, it relates to issuance of passport or passport or travel document to be issued. Such a situation will not apply to the present case on hand. The petitioner has not produced any orders of court seeking permission to depart India.He sought issue of additional booklet or reissue of a passport which has validity till 2024. If at all the passport authority decides to take action, he shall, either, take the same under Section 7 or 10 of the Act, or as per the orders of the competent court", the bench pointed out.

The court also clarified that the passport authority cannot resort to G.S.R 570(E) or S. 6(2)(f) merely because the petitioner has obtained permission from the court in the past without a specified time limit for foreign travel.

The court also went on to note that the Prashant Bhushan case (2016) where the constitutional validity of S.6 was challenged before Delhi High Court won't apply here.

"This court has no different opinion on the validity of the provision, but it is subjected to other provisions for invoking the same", the court clarified.

Therefore, the court disposed of the writ petition by instructing the Central Government Panel Counsel to communicate the order to the passport authority without waiting for a certified copy.

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

Case No: W.P.No.332 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 83

Click Here To Read/ Download Order