Ch Kranthi Kumar Vs the Union of India

¶1

APHC010464142025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 24346/2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

CH KRANTHI KUMAR, S/O. (LATE) SUBBARAO, AGE 40 YEARS, D.NO.54-18-27, PLOT NO. 35, LIC COLONY, 2ND LINE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, E BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARY, NEW DELHI

¶11

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP BY ITS PASSPORT OFFICER, RPO, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT

¶12

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE VISAKHAPATNAM, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP BY ITS PASSPORT OFFICER, RPO, VISAKHAPATNAM. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.08.12.2025 IN I.A.NO.03 OF 2025

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.PELLETI RAJESH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶18

SRK, J W.P.No.24346 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 24346 of 2025

¶21

O R D E R:

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶23

“… to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 issuing impugned proceedings dated 03-09-2024 only for one year against consideration of passport application for renewal of passport for a period of 10 years as arbitrary, illegal, unfair, unlawful and against Article 21 of the Constitution and pass …”

¶24

Contents of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, in brief, are that the writ petitioner obtained Passport, which was valid from 17.10.2023 to 16.10.2024. As the writ petitioner’s passport was going to expire on 16.10.2024, he made an application on 18.03.2024 for renewal/reissue of the passport before 2^nd respondent authority along with all requisite documents. Thereafter, it is informed that the application of the petitioner for renewal of passport could not be processed due to pendency of criminal case against him in C.C.No.288 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 403 and 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said criminal case does not

¶25

SRK, J W.P.No.24346 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

involve any allegation of violence, fraud, moral turpitude, national security, public order, or international ramifications. It is contended that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as an automatic disqualification for renewal or reissuance of a passport. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶28

During arguments, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ affidavit. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would contend that the Writ Petitioner suppressed the fact of pendency of criminal case against him vide C.C.No.288 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 403 and 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶29

Perused the entire material available on record.

¶30

A perusal of entire material on record goes to show that

¶31

writ petitioner, who is aged about 40 years, is arrayed as accused in C.C.No.288 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada,

¶32

SRK, J W.P.No.24346 of 2025

¶33

4

¶34

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 403 and 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶35

It is the contention of learned counsel for writ petitioner that because of pendency of criminal case in C.C.No.288 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, the application made by the Writ Petitioner for renewing his passport was rejected by the respondents.

¶36

It is the specific contention of writ petitioner that he was falsely implicated as accused in the said case and that he is always available and would not flee away from justice. It is his specific case that pendency of criminal case against him should not lead to denial of passport facilities and further that his passport has to be renewed for a period of ten (10) years.

¶37

Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967 deals with application for obtaining a passport. Section 6 thereof deals with refusal of a passport. Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 contemplates that the passport issuing authority shall be bound to reject the application for issuance of a passport, if criminal proceedings are pending in any Court in India. The Government of India issued a Notification vide

¶38

SRK, J W.P.No.24346 of 2025

¶39

5

¶40

GSR No.570E, dated 25.08.1993. GSR 570 (E) reads as

¶41

follows:

¶42

“In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (Act 15 of 1967) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.GSR 298(E) dated the 14^th April 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, viz :- …”

¶43

A plain reading of the aforesaid Notification would go to

¶44

show that if any citizen of India intends to travel abroad when a criminal case is pending as against him before a criminal court in India, he has to produce orders from the Court concerned permitting him to depart from India exempting from the operation of provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.

¶45

SRK, J W.P.No.24346 of 2025

¶46

6

¶47

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation¹ held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years.

¶48

Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi v.

¶49

Union of India² held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. The relevant portion of the paragraph No.5 is extracted as under:

¶50

“Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also

¶51

1 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572.

¶52

2 1978 (1) SCC 248.

¶53

SRK, J W.P.No.24346 of 2025

¶54

7

¶55

prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law.

¶56

Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.”

¶57

This Court in Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India

¶58

and another³ at paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6, observed as

¶59

under:

¶60

“4. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction I was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the "renewal" of the passport.

¶61

This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent

¶62

3 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP).

¶63

SRK, J W.P.No.24346 of 2025

¶64

8

¶65

unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving "moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction and makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case/cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport.

¶66

The second issue here in this case is about the applicability of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act. In the opinion of this Court that section applies to issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a passport. It is also clear from GSR 570(E) which is the Notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and is referred to in the counter-affidavit. This Notification clarifies the procedure to be followed under Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act against a person whom the criminal cases are pending. This notification permits them to approach the Court and the Court can decide the period for which the passport is to be issued. This is clear from a reading of the Notification issued. Clause (a) (i) states if no period is prescribed by the Court the passport should be issued for one year. Clause (a) (ii) states if the order of the Court gives permission to travel abroad for less than a year but has not prescribed the validity period of the passport, then the

¶67

SRK, J W.P.No.24346 of 2025

¶68

9

¶69

passport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause (a) (iii) states if the order of the Court permits foreign travel for more than one year but does not specify the validity of the passport, the passport should be issued for the period of travel mentioned in the order. Such a passport can also be renewed on Court orders. Therefore, a reading of GSR 570(E) makes it very clear that to give exception or to exempt applicants from the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E) has been brought into operation. The issuance of the passport and the period of its validity; the period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court.

¶70

The writ petitioner is arrayed as accused in the aforesaid criminal case. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner would abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and present/ appear before the Court as and when required without fail. Right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The said right is a Fundamental Right and a citizen of the country cannot be deprived of his personal liberty or of his right to travel abroad. As held in Ganni Bhaskara Rao Case (3 supra), mere fact that a criminal case is pending against a person, is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. In view of the aforesaid facts and

¶71

SRK, J W.P.No.24346 of 2025

¶72

10

¶73

circumstances of the case, and duly considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in various Judgments discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this Court exempts the petitioner from the operation of provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 in terms of the Notification in G.S.R.No.570(E) issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, dated 25.08.1993 and directs the authority concerned to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of passport to him. The passport shall be renewed with a validity of ten (10) years, under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980.

¶74