Kunapuri Kiran Kumar Vs the Union of India

¶1

[3207]

¶2

APHC010101992026

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5769/2026; 5835 of 2026; 6154 of 2026; 6317 of 2026; 6558 of 2026; 7015 of 2026; 7031 of 2026; 7129 of 2026; 7234 of 2026; 8290 of 2026; 8686 of 2026 and 8731 of 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

MANTHENA VENKATASURYA NARASA RAJU, S/O VENKATA RAYAPA RAJU, 7-61, CANAL ROAD, MOGALLU, KORUKOLLU, PALAKODERU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534209, ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110011.

¶13

THE PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP BY ITS CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, PSP DIVISION, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.8, PATIYALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶14

THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, NEAR P F OFFICE BESIDE, RYTHU BAZAR MARRIPALEM VUDA LAYOUT NAD POST, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A P- 530009.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM, PIN CODE 534201.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent not renew of the

¶18

2

¶19

passport of the petitioner vide bearing No.M1540500 vide File No.VS407699567 9924 without considering the explanation dt.19-11-2025 given by the petitioner to the notice dated 17-03-2025, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice apart from violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to renew the passport vide no. passport bearing No.Ml540500 vide File No.VS4076995679924 to the petitioner forthwith, and to pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the 3rd respondent to renew the passport vide no. passport bearing No.Ml540500 vide File No.VS4076995679924 to the petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.JAMI MADHAVI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel)

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶29

WRIT PETITION Nos: 5769 of 2026; 5835 of 2026; 6154 of 2026; 6317 of 2026; 6558 of 2026; 7015 of 2026; 7031 of 2026; 7129 of 2026; 7234 of 2026; 8290 of 2026; 8686 of 2026 and 8731 of 2026.

¶30

COMMON ORDER: -

¶31

As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is an identical, they are taken up together and are being disposed of, by this common order at the stage of admission, with consent of both sides.

¶32

These Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of the respondents i.e., Passport Authorities in rejecting or keeping pending their applications for issuance of passports or re-issuance of passports or renewal of passports on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings against them, as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government and learned Government Pleader for Department of Home, and perused the material available on record.

¶34

In all these Writ Petitions, the applications submitted by the petitioners for issuance of passports or re-issuance of passports or renewal of passports have been rejected or kept pending in view of the pendency of the criminal cases against them before the concerned Courts.

¶35

The point for consideration in all these Writ Petitions is whether the passport authorities were justified in rejecting for issuance of passports or re-

¶36

4

¶37

issuance of passports or renewal of passports of the petitioners on the ground of pendency of criminal cases/criminal proceedings against them or not?

¶38

Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel appearing on either side, it is clear that the issue raised in these writ petitions is no longer res integra , as the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts, including this Court, on several occasions, held that for issuance of passports or reissuance of passports or renewal of passports cannot be withheld merely on account of the pendency of criminal proceedings.

¶39

It is very pertinent to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the various High Courts as extracted herein under:

¶40

(1) In Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of

¶41

Investigation¹ , the Apex Court had an occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, pendency of criminal cases and 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. Section 6.2(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and also Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against which, an appeal was filed and the same

¶42

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

¶43

5

¶44

was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to issue the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C.

¶45

(2) In Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi² , the Apex Court at para No.13 observed as herein under:

¶46

“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.”

¶47

(3) In Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India³ , the Apex Court 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 Para No.5 is extracted herein under:

¶48

“5. 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 Passport may be issued or refused or canceled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient

¶49

22013 (15) SCC 570 : MANU/SC/0935/2013

¶50

3 1978 (1) SCC 248 : MANU/SC/0133/1978

¶51

6

¶52

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

¶53

(4) In Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and Others⁴ ,

¶54

the Apex Court observed at para No.5 as extracted herein under:

¶55

“5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining 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.”

¶56

(5) The High Court of State of Telangana in a case of Sannith Reddy Mandhadi vs. The Union of India and others⁵ , while dealing with the identical case has issued certain directions as extracted herein under:

¶57

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and duly considering the law laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts in the various Judgments (referred to and extracted above), the Writ Petition is allowed, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the explanation dated 05.01.2024 furnished by the petitioner to the notice dated 28.10.2023, issued to the petitioner, duly taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court and the other High Courts in the various Judgments referred to and extracted above and pass appropriate orders on petitioner's application for issuance of passport with File Number HY7075704548723 dated 22.08.2023 for a period of ten years, under

¶58

4 MANU/SC/0826/2019

¶59

5 MANU/TL/0305/2024

¶60

7

¶61

Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980, without reference to the Criminal Proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.3674 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge cum II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at LB Nagar and also the Gazette Notification issued by the Central Government vide GSR No.570(E) dated 25.08.1913, subject to the following conditions:

¶62

i) The petitioner herein shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit in Crime No. 465 of 2022 on the file of P.S. LB Nagar, stating that he will not leave India during pendency of the said case without permission of the Court and that he will co-operate with trial Court in concluding the proceedings in the said case. ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the trial Court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two (02) weeks therefrom;

¶63

iii) The petitioner herein shall submit certified copy of aforesaid undertaking before the Respondent Passport Officer for renewal of his passport;

¶64

iv) The Respondent-Passport Officer shall consider the said application in the light of the observations made by this Court herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioner for renewal of his passport in accordance with law, within two (02) weeks from the date of said application;

¶65

v) On renewal of the Passport, the petitioner herein shall deposit the original renewed Passport before the trial Court in Crime No. 465 of 2022 on the file of P.S. LB Nagar; and

¶66

vi) However, liberty is granted to the petitioner herein to file an application before the trial Court seeking permission to travel aboard and it is for the trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law.

¶67

(6) In a recent judgment of the Apex Court in case of Mahesh Kumar

¶68

Agarwal vs. Union of India & Anr.,⁶ while dealing with the aspect of freedom

¶69

of a citizen and rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, observed as herein under:-

¶70

“Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State may, where statute so provides, regulate or restrain that freedom in the interests of justice, security or public order but such restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law. When procedural safeguards are converted into

¶71

6 2025 INSC 1476

¶72

8

¶73

rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden into indefinite exclusions, the balance between the power of the State and the dignity of the individual is disturbed, and the promise of the Constitution is put at risk.”

¶74

It is also held at paragraph No.25 of the aforesaid judgment as under:

¶75

“Para 25:- In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to sustain the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. Both have treated Section 6(2)(f) as an absolute bar so long as any criminal proceeding is pending, without giving full effect to the statutory exemption mechanism under Section 22 and GSR 570(E), and without adequately appreciating that the criminal courts actually dealing with the appellant’s cases have consciously permitted renewal while retaining stringent control over any foreign travel. They have, in effect converted a qualified restriction, designed to secure the presence of an accused, into a near-permanent disability to hold a valid passport, even where the criminal courts themselves do not consider such a disability necessary.”

¶76

In the light of the above settled law and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of these cases, this Court holds that the petitioners are entitled for issuance or re-issuance or renewal of their Passports without reference to the criminal proceedings pending against them. Thus, the action of the Passport Authorities in rejecting or keeping pending the applications for issuance of passports or re-issuance of passports or renewal of passports on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is declared as illegal and unjust and they are liable to be set aside and accordingly, they are set aside.

¶77

Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed with the following direction:

¶78

The Passport Authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders on the applications submitted by the petitioners for issuance of passports or re-

¶79

9

¶80

issuance of passports or renewal of passports, for a period of ten (10) years, under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of Passport Rules, 1980 and also the Gazette Notification issued by the Central Government vide GSR No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993, without reference to the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the concerned Courts, subject to the following conditions:

¶81

(i) The petitioners shall submit an undertaking, along with an affidavit affirming that he/she will not leave the country during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, pending against them without permission of the courts having jurisdiction and that he/she will cooperate with concerned trial court in concluding the proceedings.

¶82

(ii) On filing such an undertaking as well as affidavit, the concerned trial court shall issue a certified copy of the same within two (02) weeks.

¶83

(iii) The petitioners shall submit the certified copy of the aforesaid undertaking before the respondent-Passport Officer for issuance of passport or re-issuance or renewal of his/her passport.

¶84

(iv) The respondent-Passport Officer shall consider the said application in the light of the observations made by this Court herein as well as the contents of the undertaking given by the petitioners for issuance of passport or re-issuance or renewal of his/her passport in accordance with law, within two (02) weeks from the date of said application.

¶85

(v) On renewal of the passport, the petitioners shall deposit the original renewed Passport before the concerned trial court.

¶86

10

¶87