The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that passport authorities can’t refuse to renew a passport citing the pendency of a criminal case against the applicant if the concerned court grants permission to the person to travel abroad.
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari passed the order in 3 writ petitions which sought a direction to passport authorities for a renewal of the petitioners’ passports after it was rejected on the ground of pending criminal proceedings.
The single-judge ordered, “On production of an order, from the concerned Court, as referred in the notification, the renewal of the passport shall not be refused only on the ground of Section 6 (2) (f), i.e., mere pendency of the criminal case for trial.”
Therefore, the petitioners had been accused of crimes such as cheating, cruelty towards women, and offenses under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Due to the pending trials, their passport was not recommended for renewal by the authorities.
The petitioners argued that under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, renewal can’t be refused since it applies only to the issuance of a passport.
On the other hand, the central government contended that the authorities could refuse passport services to the petitioner under the Passports Act in view of the pendency of the criminal cases.
It was stated that the issue could be considered if the petitioner submits either an acquittal order from the court concerned or obtains permission from the court where the case is pending.
Therefore, the primary question for consideration before the court was whether renewal of the passport could be refused on the ground of pendency of a criminal case for trial under Section 6(2)(f) of the Act.
To examine the issue, attention was drawn to a Ministry of External Affairs notification from August 1993 that granted an exemption from the operation of Section 6 (2)(f) if the applicant produces an order from the court concerned permitting them to depart India.
The Court stated that “In other words, even if the proceedings in respect of an offense alleged to have been committed by the applicant for the passport are pending before a criminal court in India, the passport authority shall not refuse to issue a passport if such applicant produces the order from the Court concerned permitting him to depart from India.”
Thus, the Court held that authorities could deny renewal only in the absence of a court’s permission.
Further, it was clarified that this notification also applied to applicants who have already departed from India by using the passport which is to be renewed.
Therefore, the respondents were asked to consider the petitioner’s case on the production of a court order. Advocates P Sree Ramulu Naidu, KV Aditya Chowdary, and Surepalli Madhava Rao appeared for the petitioners. The respondents were represented by Central Government Counsel G Arun Showri and Alekhya Tadasina.
