Allahabad High Court Upholds One-Year Passport Issuance for Applicant with Pending Criminal Case

Court affirms statutory guidelines limiting passport validity when court order lacks specific duration, ensuring compliance with legal provisions

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the issuance of a passport valid for one year to Rahimuddin, whose application was under scrutiny due to a pending criminal case. The decision highlights the adherence to statutory guidelines when the court's order does not specify the duration of passport validity.

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, addressing the writ petition filed by Rahimuddin. The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Regional Passport Officer, Bareilly, to issue a passport valid for ten years, following a No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, dated October 10, 2024.

The case's background reveals Rahimuddin's previous approach to the High Court in Writ C No. 30083 of 2024, seeking passport issuance amidst a pending criminal case under FIR No. 181 of 2016, involving charges under Section 447 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Following directions from the court, Rahimuddin obtained an NOC from the competent court, leading to the issuance of a passport valid for one year.

Rahimuddin's counsel argued for a ten-year passport validity, referencing judgments from similar cases, including Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India. However, the counsel for the respondent, the passport office, contended that the court's order permitting travel for pilgrimage did not specify any duration, justifying the one-year validity based on guidelines from a Notification dated August 25, 1993.

The court examined statutory provisions under the Passports Act, 1967, particularly Section 6(2)(f), which allows refusal of passports for applicants with pending criminal cases, and Section 22, which empowers the Central Government to exempt certain individuals from such provisions. The court emphasized adherence to guidelines from the 1993 Notification, which prescribes a one-year passport validity in the absence of a specified duration by the court.

The judgment reaffirmed the principles of fairness and reasonableness in administrative actions affecting the right to travel abroad, as encompassed within the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It underscored the importance of timely processing of passport applications, urging authorities, particularly the police, to ensure efficient verification procedures.

The court also highlighted the need for passport applicants to pursue necessary permissions and approvals from relevant authorities before approaching the court for directions. It emphasized that the issuance and renewal of passports should comply with statutory conditions and guidelines, ensuring applicants' right to travel is not unduly hindered.

Ultimately, the court disposed of the petition, granting Rahimuddin the liberty to apply for passport renewal following its expiry, subject to compliance with statutory provisions. The judgment serves as a guiding precedent for similar cases, balancing legal mandates with individual rights.

Bottom Line:

Passport issuance and renewal for applicants with pending criminal cases - Duration of passport validity determined by court's order or statutory guidelines; passport authority justified in issuing one-year validity when court order does not specify duration.

Statutory provision(s): Passports Act, 1967 Sections 6(2)(f), 7, and 22; Notification dated 25th August, 1993

Rahimuddin v. Union of India, (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2804193