Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Madras High Court Sets Aside Passport Denial, Directs Accused to Seek Court Permission for Travel Abroad

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, addressed the nexus between pending criminal proceedings and the eligibility for passport issuance. The Court's decision revolved around the interpretation and application of Sections 5(2) and 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, and the Ministry of External Affairs notification GSR.570(E) dated 25.08.1993.

The petitioner, Rajkumar, challenged the refusal to issue a passport due to a pending criminal case (Cr.No.44 of 2022). The Regional Passport Officer had issued a show cause notice, citing the suppression of information about the pending case in the passport application. The primary issue was whether a passport could be issued to a person with ongoing criminal proceedings.

Justice V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, while assessing the matter, referred to the precedents in N.Chandrababu vs. the Sub Inspector of Police and Noushad Thazhaith vs. State, which established guidelines for passport issuance to individuals with pending criminal cases. The Court observed, "In the light of these legal provisions...it is incumbent upon the petitioner to obtain permission from the court where the criminal case is pending for traveling abroad." The Court further added that "a balance must be struck between the individual’s right to travel and the interests of justice."

The judgment underscored the application of Sections 5(2) and 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967. These sections empower the passport authority to refuse passport issuance in cases where criminal proceedings are pending. Additionally, the Court highlighted the MEA notification GSR.570(E), which provides a mechanism for individuals with pending cases to obtain passports, subject to certain conditions.

The High Court set aside the order of the Regional Passport Officer dated 05.01.2024 and directed the petitioner to seek permission from the court handling his criminal case for traveling abroad and passport issuance. The petitioner was also instructed to participate in the criminal proceedings and inform the court about the High Court's orders.

Dated : 01.02.2024

Rajkumar vs. The Regional Passport Officer & Anr.

 

 

Latest Legal News