The Rajasthan High Court has delivered a significant ruling affirming that the pendency of a matrimonial dispute cannot serve as a legal basis for impounding a passport or restricting its renewal to one year. The judgment reinforces the principle that passport issuance must align with statutory mandates and constitutional rights, particularly the right to livelihood under Article 21, and cannot be arbitrarily curtailed by administrative notifications.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vikramjeet Singh, a professional travel blogger, sought issuance of a regular 10-year passport after his existing passport, issued on 02.06.2014 and valid until 01.06.2024, was impounded by the Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur. The impounding followed a complaint by his wife, who alleged non-cooperation in criminal proceedings related to a matrimonial dispute. The petitioner had filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and his wife had filed an FIR under Section 498A IPC on 03.11.2016. The petitioner was granted bail on 26.04.2017 with no travel restrictions imposed.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s original passport was issued on 05.09.1997 and renewed on 02.06.2014 for a 10-year period.
- His wife took possession of his passport on 12.09.2016 and later emailed the Passport Authority alleging he was avoiding criminal proceedings.
- The Passport Authority issued a show-cause notice under Section 10(3)(h) of the Passport Act, 1967 on 07.06.2019, seeking reasons why the passport should not be impounded.
- The petitioner requested copies of the complaint and supporting documents on 27.06.2019, but they were not provided.
- On 09.09.2019, the passport was impounded without any hearing, notice, or opportunity to respond.
- The documents were only supplied on 01.11.2019, after impounding, citing Gazette Notification dated 25.08.1993 as grounds for restricting renewal to one year.
- The petitioner had previously filed Writ Petition No. 18354/2019 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was disposed of on 04.09.2019 with a direction to supply documents and conclude proceedings expeditiously.
- No criminal court had framed charges or imposed travel restrictions.
Procedural History
- 05.09.1997: Initial passport issued
- 02.06.2014: Passport renewed for 10 years (valid till 01.06.2024)
- 12.09.2016: Wife took possession of passport
- 10.10.2016: Petitioner filed police complaint regarding theft of passport
- 03.11.2016: FIR filed by wife under Section 498A IPC
- 26.04.2017: Petitioner granted bail with no travel restrictions
- 31.07.2017: Petitioner applied for re-issuance of passport
- 07.06.2019: Show-cause notice issued under Section 10(3)(h) of the Passport Act
- 09.09.2019: Passport impounded without hearing or notice
- 01.11.2019: Documents supplied to petitioner; impugned order issued citing Gazette Notification 25.08.1993
- 04.09.2019: Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hardik Shah directed supply of documents and fair hearing
- 13.03.2026: Rajasthan High Court delivered judgment in present writ petition
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impounding order dated 09.09.2019, direction to issue a 10-year passport, and declaration that the Gazette Notification dated 25.08.1993 cannot override the Passports Rules, 1980.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Gazette Notification dated 25.08.1993 permits the Passport Authority to restrict passport renewal to one year solely on account of a pending matrimonial case, and whether such restriction violates the right to livelihood under Article 21 and the principle of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to argue that passport impounding without prior hearing violates natural justice. He cited Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. to contend that mere pendency of a criminal case, especially in matrimonial disputes, cannot justify passport impounding absent evidence of flight risk. He emphasized that Navin Kumar Sonkar and Manish Kumar Mittal establish that passport authorities must apply independent mind and cannot act mechanically. He further argued that the Bombay High Court in Roshan Lawrence Menezes had held that Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, 1980 mandates 10-year passports for adults, and the 1993 Notification cannot override this statutory rule.
For the Respondent
The Respondent’s counsel relied on the Gazette Notification dated 25.08.1993, arguing that it permits issuance of passports for only one year to individuals facing pending criminal proceedings, unless a court permits otherwise. He contended that the notification is a valid exercise of power under Section 22 of the Passport Act and that the petitioner’s matrimonial dispute constituted sufficient grounds for restriction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a detailed review of precedents and statutory provisions. It noted that the petitioner’s passport was impounded on 09.09.2019 without any hearing, despite the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s prior direction in Hardik Shah to provide documents and afford a fair opportunity. The Court held that the failure to deny the petitioner’s specific allegations in the reply amounted to an admission under Naseem Bano v. State of U.P..
"An effective and meaningful hearing can take place only after such document and complain are furnished to the petitioner."
The Court emphasized that Maneka Gandhi mandates pre-decisional hearing in matters affecting fundamental rights, and post-decisional hearing is insufficient. It further held that the pendency of a matrimonial case, without any finding of absconding or risk of tampering with evidence, cannot justify passport impounding.
The Court critically examined the 1993 Notification and found it in conflict with Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, 1980, which mandates a minimum 10-year validity for adult passports. Citing Roshan Lawrence Menezes, the Court held that when a criminal court permits passport renewal under the Rules, the Passport Authority is bound to issue it for 10 years. The Notification only applies if the court itself specifies a shorter period.
"The Government is duty bound to follow the principles and directions laid down in the previous judgments and renew passports for a period of ten years."
The Court concluded that the impounding and restriction violated the petitioner’s right to livelihood as a travel blogger, protected under Article 21. The action was arbitrary, disproportionate, and contrary to settled law.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The impounding order dated 09.09.2019 was set aside. The respondents are directed to issue a regular passport to the petitioner for a period of 10 years, subject to no other legal impediment. The pendency of the matrimonial case cannot be a ground for denial. The passport must be issued within three weeks of production of a copy of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Passport Renewal Cannot Be Arbitrarily Restricted
- Practitioners must challenge any passport restriction based solely on pending matrimonial or non-serious criminal cases
- The burden lies on the state to prove flight risk or obstruction of justice, not on the applicant to prove innocence
Gazette Notifications Cannot Override Statutory Rules
- Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, 1980 mandates 10-year validity for adult passports
- Any notification limiting validity to one year is invalid unless a court explicitly prescribes a shorter period
- Legal notices citing the 1993 Notification as absolute bar must be contested with Roshan Lawrence Menezes and Narendra K. Ambwani
Natural Justice Is Non-Negotiable
- No passport can be impounded without prior notice and hearing
- Post-facto supply of documents does not cure procedural illegality
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are the appropriate remedy for arbitrary passport actions
