In a significant ruling, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has provided clarity on the procedural requirements for under-trial individuals seeking to obtain, renew, or reissue passports, particularly when intending to travel abroad. The Court emphasized that while the mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify an individual from passport issuance, obtaining prior permission from the concerned trial court is a necessary prerequisite for those wishing to travel internationally.
The bench, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, examined the interplay between the Passports Act, 1967, and the Ministry of External Affairs' Notification GSR 570(E) dated August 25, 1993. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act stipulates that the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport to any person against whom criminal proceedings are pending before a court in India. However, the 1993 notification provides an exemption, allowing the issuance of passports to such individuals, provided they furnish an order from the court permitting them to travel abroad.
The Court underscored that this exemption is not automatic. Under-trial individuals must first approach the trial court to seek explicit permission to travel abroad. Only upon obtaining such permission can they apply to the passport authority for the issuance, renewal, or reissuance of their passport. This two-step process ensures that the individual's right to travel is balanced against the interests of justice and the integrity of ongoing legal proceedings.
In the case at hand, the petitioner, a practicing advocate, had applied for a fresh passport. The police report highlighted the pendency of two criminal cases against him. The petitioner contended that in one case, he did not require the trial court's permission based on a previous judgment in Umapati v. Union of India. Regarding the other case, he argued that a final report had been submitted, implying that the matter was no longer active. However, the Court clarified that irrespective of the petitioner's interpretations, the procedural requirement of obtaining the trial court's permission remained mandatory.
The Court's decision reinforces the principle that the right to travel abroad, while fundamental, is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when an individual's presence is required in ongoing legal proceedings. By mandating prior court permission, the judiciary ensures that under-trial individuals do not evade legal processes under the guise of international travel.
This ruling serves as a crucial guideline for both passport authorities and individuals with pending criminal cases. It delineates the responsibilities of under-trial individuals, emphasizing the necessity of judicial approval before seeking passport services for international travel. Simultaneously, it provides a clear framework for passport authorities to assess applications from such individuals, ensuring that decisions are made in compliance with legal provisions and judicial directives.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court's judgment delineates a clear procedural pathway for under-trial individuals seeking to travel abroad. By requiring prior permission from the trial court before applying for passport issuance, renewal, or reissuance, the Court balances the individual's right to travel with the imperative of ensuring their participation in ongoing legal proceedings. This decision not only upholds the rule of law but also provides clarity and consistency in the application of passport regulations concerning under-trial individuals.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.