Topic
The Passports Act, 1967 governs the issuance, denial, and cancellation of Indian passports, with provisions like Section 6 and Section 10 setting legal grounds for restriction based on pending criminal proceedings.
Even with ECIR proceedings, the Calcutta High Court allowed a ten-year passport renewal where the applicant satisfied the Section 22 exemption, curbing the blanket one-year limit of Notification GSR 570(E). The ruling aids individuals under investigation seeking longer-valid passports.
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the mere pendency of criminal charges, without conviction or evidence of flight risk, cannot override the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21. This sets a critical precedent for citizens facing untried allegations, ensuring passport renewal cannot be weaponized as administrative punishment.
Madurai HC rules that passport authorities cannot withhold issuance or renewal solely based on pending police verification unless criminal proceedings are actively pending before a court. The judgment reinforces statutory limits under Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, protecting applicants' right to mobility where no judicial proceedings exist.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot justify denying a 10-year passport renewal under the Passports Act, provided the applicant complies with court-imposed conditions such as seeking prior permission before international travel. This sets a critical precedent for safeguarding the right to mobility under Article 21, even for individuals facing pending charges, as long as judicial safeguards are respected.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that delaying a Tatkaal passport application solely due to administrative inaction-when no charge sheet or court order exists-constitutes a violation of the right to travel, equality, and personal liberty. This sets a clear precedent for passport authorities: procedural silence cannot override statutory rights under the Passports Act, especially when no criminal bar is present.
Madras High Court rules that passport denial under Section 6 of the Passports Act requires pending criminal proceedings before a court, not just an FIR. The judgment mandates strict adherence to statutory grounds, impacting passport applicants facing police investigations without formal charges.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that passport renewal cannot be denied solely based on a pending FIR; Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act mandates court cognizance before restricting travel rights under Article 21. This clarifies that administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily block passports during police investigations, ensuring procedural fairness for applicants facing criminal allegations.
Telangana High Court rules that mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically disqualify passport issuance under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act. Applicants must obtain a No Objection Certificate from the trial court, with travel permission requiring separate judicial approval. The ruling balances Article 21 rights with statutory compliance, impacting individuals facing criminal cases seeking overseas travel.
Telangana High Court rules that pending criminal cases do not automatically disqualify passport issuance, mandating trial court NOC procedure under Passports Act, 1967.
Kerala High Court directs issuance of Emergency Certificate under Section 4(2)(a) of Passports Act for accused abroad to surrender before magistrate, with strict compliance conditions.