The Bombay High Court criticized the Foreigners Regional Registration Office for refusing to process the exit permit of a United States national who is facing trial in Maharashtra in connection with allegations of religious conversion, holding that such refusal was unjustified in the face of a valid judicial order permitting him to travel abroad. The Court emphasized that administrative authorities cannot disregard or undermine court orders by relying on objections raised by investigating agencies.
The case arose from allegations that the US national had attempted religious conversion during a prayer gathering in Bhiwandi. He was booked under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings. He also faced charges under the Maharashtra Black Magic Act, 2013, as well as under the Foreigners Act, 1946 for alleged violations related to his visa.
Earlier, a sessions court in Thane had granted him bail with the condition that he could not travel abroad without prior permission. Subsequently, the same court permitted him to travel to the United States for a limited period after taking into account the medical condition of his mother, who was suffering from breast cancer. Following this order, the accused approached the Foreigners Regional Registration Office seeking an exit permit, which is required for foreign nationals facing criminal proceedings in India.
However, the Foreigners Regional Registration Office refused to process his application. The refusal was based on objections raised by the investigating agency, which opposed the accused’s travel abroad citing the seriousness of the charges against him. As a result, the application was not processed, effectively preventing the accused from availing the benefit of the court’s order. This led him to approach the High Court, contending that the refusal amounted to interference with a judicial order.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that once a competent court had granted permission to travel, administrative authorities were bound to act in accordance with that order. He contended that the refusal by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office rendered the sessions court’s order ineffective and deprived him of the relief granted by the court. He maintained that such an approach was legally unsustainable.
The State opposed the plea by highlighting the seriousness of the allegations against the accused and informed the Court that the sessions court’s order permitting travel had already been challenged. It sought to justify the refusal of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office on the basis of these objections. However, the High Court focused on the legality of the administrative action rather than the merits of the order granting permission to travel.
The High Court held that the Foreigners Regional Registration Office was not justified in refusing to process the exit permit application merely because the investigating agency had raised objections. It observed that once a judicial order permitting travel is in force, it must be complied with by all authorities unless it is set aside or modified by a competent court. The Court made it clear that administrative bodies cannot refuse to act on such orders based on inputs from investigating agencies.
The Court further observed that an investigating agency cannot indirectly defeat or overreach a judicial order by preventing its implementation through administrative means. It stressed that permitting such conduct would undermine the authority and binding nature of judicial decisions. The Court emphasized that judicial orders must retain their full force and cannot be rendered ineffective through indirect actions.
It was also noted that if the investigating agency was aggrieved by the order permitting travel, it ought to have challenged it through appropriate legal proceedings. Raising objections before the Foreigners Regional Registration Office and thereby stalling the implementation of the order was not a permissible course of action. The Court held that such an approach could not be sustained in law.
The High Court reiterated that orders passed by competent courts are binding on all authorities and must be complied with unless stayed or set aside. It underscored that administrative authorities cannot sit in judgment over judicial orders or decide whether to comply with them based on their own assessment.
In light of these findings, the Court directed the Foreigners Regional Registration Office to process the exit permit application of the accused within a period of two days. This direction was issued to ensure that the sessions court’s order allowing travel was implemented without further delay.
The ruling reinforces the principle that executive authorities must act in conformity with judicial orders and cannot circumvent them through administrative decisions. It clarifies that objections raised by investigating agencies cannot override or stall the implementation of court orders unless those orders are legally set aside.
The case highlights the importance of maintaining the supremacy of judicial authority in situations involving administrative discretion, particularly where the rights of individuals are affected. It underscores that administrative processes must operate within the framework of judicial decisions and cannot be used to frustrate their implementation.
Overall, the Bombay High Court’s decision affirms that once a court grants permission for travel, authorities such as the Foreigners Regional Registration Office are obligated to process the necessary formalities and cannot refuse to do so on the basis of objections from investigating agencies. The judgment ensures that judicial orders are given full effect and are not undermined through indirect administrative action.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.