Topic
The right to travel, including abroad, is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as part of the right to life and personal liberty, even when criminal cases are pending.
The Delhi High Court permitted Natasha Narwal to travel to the UK for an academic conference despite pending UAPA charges, ruling that mere allegations cannot restrict her Article 21 right to travel abroad. The court imposed safeguards including a ₹1 lakh bond and undertakings to return, balancing personal liberty with investigative needs.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that an accused individual is entitled to a customized Police Clearance Certificate for overseas employment even with a pending criminal case, provided the certificate discloses the case details. This affirms the right to travel and work abroad as part of Article 21, preventing administrative overreach by passport authorities who treat pending cases as automatic disqualifiers.
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.
CAT Ernakulam rules that the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 cannot be restricted merely due to pending disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Satish Chandra Verma to affirm that personal travel leave cannot be denied without a substantive finding of guilt, impacting government employees facing similar procedural hurdles.
Allahabad HC holds that convictions under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, do not constitute a disqualification for passport issuance, as the statute's 'fresh start' principle and Article 21's right to travel override administrative refusals based on juvenile records. The ruling mandates passport authorities to disregard such convictions when assessing eligibility.
Gujarat High Court holds that accused persons granted anticipatory bail are entitled to passport renewal for 10 years under the Passport Rules, 1980, overriding the one-year limit under GSR Notification 570(E). The ruling underscores that travel restrictions must be explicitly imposed by a trial court, not presumed.
Allahabad HC rules that a juvenile conviction under the JJ Act 2000 carries no disqualification for passport issuance, as refusal based on a stigmatic past violates Article 21 and the principle of fresh start. The judgment mandates administrative authorities to disregard juvenile records when assessing passport eligibility, reinforcing constitutional protections for rehabilitation and mobility.
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.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that passport authorities must assess applications on merits under the Passports Act, 1967, even if criminal proceedings are pending. The ruling mandates issuance with conditions like court-certified undertakings, reinforcing that automatic denial violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that passport renewal cannot be denied solely based on pending criminal proceedings. Authorities must evaluate applications on merit, ensuring procedural safeguards and enforceable conditions under Article 21. This sets a precedent for balancing individual rights with administrative discretion in passport issuance.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that passport authorities cannot withhold passport issuance solely due to pending criminal cases without a specific court order. Applicants may obtain passports by submitting a court-certified undertaking to not travel abroad without permission, upholding the right to travel under Article 21.
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.
Kerala High Court rules that accused individuals pending final report under BNSS are entitled to ten-year passport renewal unless a court order explicitly restricts it. The judgment underscores the right to overseas employment and personal liberty, directing passport authorities to comply unless specific judicial limitations exist.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that passport renewal can be denied under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, if the applicant is evading pending criminal proceedings in India. The court emphasized that police verification reports citing pending FIRs are decisive, reinforcing the state's authority to restrict travel rights to ensure trial compliance.
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.