Sailaja Yenigalla Vs Union of India

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondent authorities to process the petitioner’s application bearing No.VJ2066185664726 and to issue passport to her.

¶20

Case of the petitioner is that she is a resident of Poranki, Krishna district. Her daughter was married and presently residing in USA at 39951, Fremont Boulevard, Unit 123, Fremont, California - 94538. The petitioner intends to visit her daughter and for the said purpose, she submitted an application bearing

¶21

SRK, J WP No.4296 of 2026

¶22

2

¶23

No.VJ2066185664726 before 2^nd respondent for issuance of passport. While so, 2^nd respondent issued a notice dated 09.01.2026 referring to an adverse police verification report and calling for her explanation. The application of the petitioner was not being processed by the respondent authorities on the ground that she was involved in a case in Crime No.239 of 2021 of Kankipadu Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 403, 408, 420 and 477A of IPC and Section 66(c) read with Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008. Petitioner states that this Court, in WP No.10882 of 2021, quashed the FIR registered against her and others in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 403, 408, 420 and 477A of IPC. Therefore, after conducting investigation in respect of Section 66 read with 43 of the Information Technology Act, police filed charge sheet in the above crime, which was taken on file as CC No.1270 of 2023 on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Petitioner further states that this Court, vide orders dated 03.04.2025 passed in Criminal Petition No.3597 of 2025, granted stay of her appearance before the trial Court in the said case. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of her application, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said criminal case does not involve any allegation of violence, fraud, moral turpitude, national security, public order or international ramifications; that the Writ Petitioner was arrayed as accused without attribution of any specific overt act and merely on

¶25

SRK, J WP No.4296 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

suspicion. He further submits that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as an automatic disqualification for issuance of a Passport.

¶28

On the other hand, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that as the Writ Petitioner suppressed the fact of pendency of criminal case against her she was called for, to furnish proper explanation regarding the circumstances under which she had suppressed the material information in the application.

¶29

Heard. Perused the material on record.

¶30

A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.4 in CC No.1270 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offence punishable under Section 66(c) read with Section 43 of the Information Technology Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner’s daughter was married and presently residing in USA, hence the petitioner intends to visit her daughter and mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as an automatic disqualification for issuance of a Passport.

¶31

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

¶32

SRK, J WP No.4296 of 2026

¶33

4

¶34

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

¶35

<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 :- …=

¶36

A plain reading of the aforesaid Notification would go to 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.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

SRK, J WP No.4296 of 2026

¶40

5

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

<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 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

¶44

2 1978 (1) SCC 248.

¶45

SRK, J WP No.4296 of 2026

¶46

6

¶47

howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law.

¶48

Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be

¶49

deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.=

¶50

10. This Court in Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India and

¶51

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

¶52

<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.

¶53

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 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

¶54

3 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP).

¶55

SRK, J WP No.4296 of 2026

¶56

7

¶57

Court, the pendency of a case/cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport.

¶58

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 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.

¶59

SRK, J WP No.4296 of 2026

¶60

8

¶61

In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others⁴ , the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows:

¶62

<6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under:

¶63

"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

¶64

The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated 09.04.2019 reported in LAWS 2019(2) SCC online SC 2048 in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others at para 4 observed as under:

¶65

"The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and selfdetermining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right."

¶66

4 W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023

¶67

SRK, J WP No.4296 of 2026

¶68

9

¶69

The Writ Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in the aforesaid Calendar Case registered for the offence punishable under Section 66(c) read with Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000-2008. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that 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.

¶70

In the light of the settled legal position and the purpose pleaded by the petitioner for visiting abroad and viewed the facts of the present case in the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court exempts the petitioner from the operation of provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 in terms of the Notification in GSR No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs and directs the authority concerned to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of passport to her, without reference to the aforesaid criminal case pending against her, under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980.

¶71

Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, she shall obtain prior permission from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever her presence is required by the Court.

¶72

SRK, J WP No.4296 of 2026

¶73

10

¶74