Pending FIR No Ground to Refuse Passport Renewal; Criminal Court Can Regulate Travel: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner, a hotelier who travels abroad for business, applied to renew his passport after it expired (para 6). On 05.01.2023 the Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur rejected the application on a police report that FIR No. 86/2021 under Sections 498A and 406 IPC was registered against him at Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) (paras 5-6). He asked the Court to quash the rejection and direct renewal (para 4). No one appeared for him at the hearing; the Public Prosecutor opposed the petition but could not controvert its averments (para 7). The question was whether renewal can be refused only because a criminal case is pending (para 3).

The Court held that the pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to deny passport facilities, because personal liberty under Article 21 includes both the right to travel abroad and the right to hold a valid passport (paras 1, 8). It relied on Satwant Singh Sawhney and Maneka Gandhi, which require a just, fair and reasonable procedure before the right to go abroad is curtailed (paras 2, 12). Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu and Mahesh Kumar Agarwal held that a pending criminal case or appeal is no absolute bar to renewal, and that whether the holder may actually travel is for the criminal court, not the passport authority (paras 9-10, 16). It also cited Sumit Mehta, Satish Chandra Verma, Noor Paul, Ganni Bhaskara Rao and its own order in Savita Sharma, which held that an adverse police report does not by itself disentitle a citizen to a passport (paras 11, 13-15, 17). The authorities' fear that the petitioner might abscond can be met by conditions, with coercive action if they are broken (paras 19-20).