In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court reiterated the importance of an individual's fundamental rights by holding that the renewal of a passport for a person accused in a criminal case cannot be denied solely on the basis of their accused status. The court emphasized that the right to travel is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and any restriction on such a right must be lawful, proportionate, and based on reasoned analysis rather than mere assumptions about criminal liability.
The case revolved around a petitioner who was facing criminal proceedings and had sought renewal of his passport, which was due to expire. However, the renewal was denied by the authorities, who cited the pendency of the criminal case as the primary reason for refusal. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court seeking redressal and arguing that being an accused alone could not strip him of his fundamental right to travel unless a competent court imposed a valid restriction on such travel.
Upon hearing the matter, the Gujarat High Court critically analyzed the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, particularly Section 6(2)(f), which permits the denial of passport services to individuals facing criminal proceedings if the court has issued specific directions prohibiting their travel abroad. The court underscored that the law does not allow for automatic rejection of passport renewal applications merely because someone is facing trial. Instead, the decision must be based on actual and substantial reasons, supported either by a judicial order or by a legitimate apprehension of the accused fleeing justice.
The court also examined earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, which have consistently held that fundamental rights, including the right to travel abroad, cannot be curtailed lightly. It emphasized that courts have the authority to impose appropriate conditions or grant necessary permissions if there are legitimate concerns regarding the accused's conduct or likelihood of absconding. However, in the absence of any such judicial restriction, authorities cannot unilaterally and arbitrarily deny passport renewal.
In its final observations, the Gujarat High Court directed the concerned passport authority to reconsider the petitioner’s application afresh, without treating the pendency of the criminal case as an automatic ground for denial. The court clarified that unless there is a specific direction from the trial court or compelling reasons to believe that allowing travel would obstruct the course of justice, the individual’s right to renew their passport must be upheld.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s continued emphasis on protecting individual liberties and ensuring that administrative actions are not only legally sound but also grounded in constitutional principles. The decision serves as a reminder that while the State has the responsibility to ensure the effective administration of criminal justice, it must do so in a manner that respects the fundamental rights of individuals, especially when those rights are not curtailed by any judicial order. The judgment is an important affirmation of due process and proportionality in decisions affecting personal freedom.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.