Delhi HC sets aside passport impounding order, reaffirms citizen's right to travel abroad

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that the action was legally unsustainable and reaffirmed the legal position governing pendency of criminal proceedings under the Passports Act.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Partner Sandeep Kapur of Karanjawala and Co., along with Rahul Agarwal and Rishabh Munjal, Associates. The impugned orders were challenged on the ground that no criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time he applied for renewal of his passport.

Arguing the matter, Sandeep Kapur submitted that mere registration or pendency of an FIR does not amount to pendency of criminal proceedings within the meaning of Sections 6(2)(f) and 10(3)(e) of the Act. He relied on Clause 5(vi) of the Office Memorandum dated October 10, 2019, which clarifies that criminal proceedings are considered pending only when a case has been instituted before a court of law and the court has taken cognisance.

Accepting these submissions, the High Court held that the impounding order could not withstand judicial scrutiny. The Court observed that when the petitioner applied for passport renewal, the trial court had not taken cognisance of the FIR and therefore no criminal proceedings were pending against him.

The Court also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v Union of India, which held that the purpose of Sections 6(2)(f) and 10(3)(e) is to ensure that an accused remains amenable to court jurisdiction and that indefinite denial of passport renewal would be a disproportionate restriction on personal liberty.

Reaffirming that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court emphasised that passport authorities must act strictly in accordance with statutory conditions and established judicial principles while exercising powers to impound passports. (ANI)