Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea For Passport Renewal By Man Accused In Mother's Death, Says Short-Validity Passport Application May Be Considered

The Karnataka High Court has upheld a decision of the passport authority rejecting the issuance of a regular passport (Valid for 10 years), to an accused charged with offences of murder and criminal conspiracy in the death of his mother. 

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while deciding the petition said “the prayer for issuance of a regular passport/normal validity passport for 10 years is rejected. The impugned acknowledgement rejecting issuance of regular passport stands sustained.”

The Court however permitted the petitioner to apply for a short-validity passport and for his application to be considered strictly in consonance with the Passport Act and GSR-570 (notification) issued by the Central Government.

It has also clarified that such an application shall not be rejected on the grounds of the pendency of the criminal case. 

It was submitted that the petitioner was issued a normal passport from 11-04-2014 to 10-04-2024. When he was charged with the aforesaid offences, the petitioner moved a bail application, pursuant to which the Sessions Judge granted the same and permitted him to intermittently travel for work.

It was submitted that he was not being permitted to travel abroad because the validity of his passport had come down to less than six months. Therefore, the petitioner applied for the re-issuance of his passport before the authorities who rejected it on the grounds of the pending criminal case against him. 

It was argued that it was not the first time the petitioner had been issued a passport. He submitted that the application was only made due to the expiring validity of the passport preventing his travel and that the pendency of a criminal case could not impede the re-issuance of a passport to a citizen.

The Union of India opposed the plea relying on the coordinate bench judgment in the case of Kajal Naresh Kumar v. UoI, W.P.No.20850 of 2022 decided on 16-11-2022, to submit that a passport cannot be reissued as long as the criminal case is pending against the petitioner.

The bench referred to provisions of the Passport Act, particularly Section 6 and said “Section 6 forms the fulcrum of the lis. Section 6(1) directs that subject to other provisions of the Act the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any country under clause (b) or (c) of subsection (2) of Section 5 on several grounds stipulated therein. The grounds are clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) and clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 6.”

Referring to the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, dated 25-08-1993 in G.S.R.570(E), it said that such situations like that of the petitioner's, permits issuance of short validity passports pursuant to the orders that would be passed by the concerned Court...for a period of one year.

It added: “It is for the applicant against whom a criminal case is pending, in any Court of law in the country, to approach the concerned Court before which the proceeding is pending, and seek for permission to travel; It is an admitted fact that proceedings against the petitioner are pending trial in S.C.No.28 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Judge for the aforequoted offences. Denial of re-issuance of passport is thus in consonance with law.”

In negating the petitioner's argument that the re-issuance of his passport would have to be considered differently from the first time issuance of a passport, the bench observed that there is no difference between renewal, re-issuance or first issuance of the passport under Section 6(2) of the Act. "Every issuance, re-issuance or renewal will have to meet the requirements or pass through the rigours of Section 6," it held.

It was thus held that Section 6(2)(f) and GSR 570 Notification made a person ineligible for re-issuance of passport during a pending criminal case, and that a separate yardstick was nowhere indicated in the Act or the Rules.

"The Rules cannot be rendered flexible to such circumstances by a stroke of pen or a fiat of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As long as Section 6(2)(f) stares at any application, be it for fresh, renewal or re-issuance, such application cannot be directed to be granted diluting the rigor of Section 6(2)(f), if an applicant of the kind in the case at hand, wants to walk over the clouds; the cloud over such applicant must walk away.,” the Court held. 

Accordingly, it directed the petitioner to approach the concerned court for issuance of short validity passport, and in his application to clearly indicate the reason and the intended dates of travel.

Appearance: Advocate Karthik Yadav U for Petitioner.

CGC Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar for R1 and R2.

HCGP Kiran Kumar for R3.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 460

Case Title: Santhosh Beejadi Srinivas AND Union of India & Another

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.24269 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order