Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

“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.       

Similar News