Renewal of passports by courts - Only justifiable reasons for restricting the renewal
Bombay High Court Modifies Civil Court's Order on Passport Renewal Duration. Court mandates adherence to prescribed term under Passport Rules, 1980, ensuring fundamental right to travel abroad
In a landmark decision, the Bombay High Court has modified an order issued by the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, concerning the renewal period of passports. Originally, the Civil Court had restricted the renewal of passports to a term of one year for petitioners Jiten Rameshchandra Shah and others, which the High Court found unsustainable. The petitioners had challenged the restrictive order, arguing it violated the prescribed term under the Passport Rules, 1980, which mandates a renewal period of ten years for ordinary passports.
Justice N. J. Jamadar, presiding over the case, emphasized that in the absence of any justifiable or compelling reason, the Civil Court's decision to restrict the renewal period did not align with the statutory provisions. The judgment reaffirmed that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law or valid court orders.
The litigation originated from a series of disputes between the petitioners and the respondents, M/s. Shah Tokarshi Keshavji and Co., regarding property agreements. Due to non-compliance with court orders by the petitioners, bailable warrants and a lookout notice had been issued, leading to complications in passport renewal.
The High Court clarified that while the City Civil Court had set aside the lookout notices and stayed the execution of bailable warrants, the restriction on passport renewal lacked substantive reasoning. The ruling underscored that courts must provide clear reasons when deviating from the prescribed renewal term under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980.
The judgment draws attention to the distinction between civil and criminal court jurisdictions concerning passport renewals, highlighting that the exemption from Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, typically applies when no objection is issued by a criminal court.
The ruling is expected to impact similar cases, ensuring that passport renewals adhere to statutory provisions, thus safeguarding individuals' rights to travel abroad without undue restrictions. The decision mandates the renewal of passports in accordance with the prescribed term, provided petitioners meet the other conditions under the Passports Act, 1967, and associated rules.
Bottom Line:
Renewal of passports by courts - Courts must provide justifiable reasons for restricting the renewal period of passports to less than the term prescribed under the Passport Rules, 1980.
Statutory provision(s): Passports Act, 1967 Sections 6(2)(f), 22(a); Passports Rules, 1980 Rule 12; Constitutional Law Article 21
