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

“Supreme Court Rules: Passport Authority, Not Police, Holds Power to Impound Passports”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment delivered on July 25, 2023, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the power to impound passports lies solely with the Passport Authority under the Passports Act, 1967, and not with the police. The ruling came in response to a matrimonial dispute between Chennupati Kranthi Kumar, the appellant, and his wife (4th respondent), where the return of the appellant’s passport was a matter of contention.

The case (Criminal Appeal Nos.1601–1602 of 2023) involved the appellant facing prosecution for various offenses, and the police had called for the submission of his passport during the investigation. However, the Court noted that there was no legal basis for the police to impound the passport in the first place, as the relevant provisions under the Passports Act prevail over Section 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

“The provisions of the PP Act which deal with the specific subject of impounding passports shall prevail over Section 104 of Cr.P.C.,” the Court clarified, citing its previous judgment in Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation.

The Court further emphasized that if the police exercise their power to seize a passport under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., they cannot withhold it but must promptly forward it to the Passport Authority, which will then decide whether the passport should be impounded.

Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had acted improperly when it imposed conditions on the release of the appellant’s passport, including the requirement to return the passports of his wife and minor son. The Court declared that such a condition was completely illegal since there was no lawful impounding of the appellant’s passport.

“The direction to return the passports of his wife and son as a condition for the release of the appellant’s passport was completely illegal,” the Court stated.

However, the Court did permit the wife (4th respondent) to apply to the concerned Regional Passport Office for the reissuance of her passport, treating it as lost without further proof of loss beyond filing a report to the police. The appellant was directed to provide necessary cooperation in obtaining the passport by providing required documents as per Passport Rules, 1980.

Date of Decision: July 25, 2023

Chennupati Kranthi Kumar   vs The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.       

Latest Legal News