Constitution of India — Article 21 — Right to Travel — Passports Act, 1967 — Sections 5, 6(2)(f), 22 — Notification GSR 570(E) — Renewal of Passport for Accused Persons.
1. Personal Liberty and Article 21: The right to travel abroad is a fundamental facet of personal liberty. Any State restraint on this freedom must be narrowly confined, proportionate to the object, and clearly anchored in law. Procedural safeguards should not be converted into rigid barriers that harden temporary disabilities into indefinite exclusions. (Para 2, 20).
2. Interplay between Section 6(2)(f) and Section 22: While Section 6(2)(f) mandates the refusal of a passport during pending criminal proceedings, this bar is not absolute. It is subject to Section 22, which allows the Central Government to exempt persons. Notification GSR 570(E) provides this exemption, provided the concerned criminal court grants permission. (Paras 8, 10, 15).
3. Judicial "No Objection" as Exemption: If a criminal court, aware of the pending trial, grants a "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) for a 10-year renewal, the Passport Authority cannot unilaterally reduce this to a 1-year renewal by narrowly interpreting GSR 570(E). The court’s control over the accused (e.g., travel bans or requiring re-deposit of the passport) satisfies the statutory concern of ensuring the accused’s presence for trial. (Paras 12, 16, 21).
4. Distinction between Document Possession and Act of Travel: Possession of a valid passport (a civil document) is distinct from the act of crossing international borders. The latter remains under the exclusive supervision of the criminal court. The Passport Authority cannot assume a supervisory role that second-guesses the trial court's assessment of risk. (Para 22).
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
I. Background of the Appellant
The appellant, Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, faced two distinct legal hurdles:
The NIA Case: Accused in a coal mining extortion and funding case in Jharkhand. The NIA Court, Ranchi, granted an NOC for a 10-year renewal but ordered the appellant to re-deposit the passport immediately after renewal and seek permission for every trip.
The CBI Case: Convicted in a coal block matter (sentence of 4 years). The Delhi High Court suspended the sentence and granted an NOC for a 10-year renewal, strictly prohibiting travel without court leave.
II. The Dispute
Despite these judicial NOCs, the Regional Passport Office (RPO), Kolkata, refused a 10-year re-issue. They relied on a strict reading of GSR 570(E), arguing that if a court doesn't specify a "travel period," the default validity is only one year.
III. Lower Court Findings
The Calcutta High Court (both Single and Division Benches) upheld the RPO’s decision. They reasoned that Section 6(2)(f) was an unyielding bar and that the NIA Court's order was for a "limited purpose" (renewal only) rather than a "permission to depart India."
ANALYSIS OF LAW
1. The Statutory Framework
The judgment clarifies the "structured scheme" of the Passports Act:
| Provision | Function | Court's Interpretation |
| Section 5 | Procedure for application. | Applies to both new issues and renewals (re-issues). |
| Section 6(2)(f) | Mandatory refusal ground. | Linked to "pending proceedings"; must be read with Sec 22. |
| Section 22 | Power to exempt. | The gateway that allows GSR 570(E) to function. |
| GSR 570(E) | Exemption Notification. | Does NOT require a "blanket permission to travel" as a prerequisite for renewal. |
[Image comparing Section 6(2)(e) and Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act 1967]
2. Rebutting the "One-Year Default" Argument
The Supreme Court rejected the RPO’s "one-year" rule in this case. It held that when a court grants an NOC for a 10-year period, that is the "period specified in the order" under GSR 570(E)(a)(i). The RPO cannot ignore the court’s intent just because the court also imposed travel restrictions.
3. Correcting the High Court's Threshold
The High Court erroneously treated the conviction in the Delhi case as a reinforcement of the Section 6(2)(f) bar. The Supreme Court clarified:
Section 6(2)(f) is for pre-conviction (facing trial).
Section 6(2)(e) is for post-conviction (involving moral turpitude and 2+ years sentence).
Since the Delhi HC had already suspended the sentence and granted an NOC, the RPO had no grounds to invoke either section to deny a 10-year document.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Calcutta High Court's orders. It directed the Passport Authority to treat the combined orders of the NIA Court and Delhi High Court as a valid basis for a 10-year renewal, emphasizing that the courts’ ongoing control over the appellant's travel sufficiently protects the State's interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment