Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sharath Chandrasekhar, a lawyer registered with the Bar Council of Karnataka and also registered with the New York State Bar, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent, Union of India through the Ministry of External Affairs and Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru, to consider his application for renewal/re-issuance of his passport bearing number K8020859. The petitioner's passport was issued on 05.04.2013 and valid until 04.04.2023. Six months prior to expiry, he applied for renewal, but the passport authority did not process the application, allegedly due to the pendency of criminal proceedings against him. The petitioner contended that the refusal to renew was arbitrary and violative of his fundamental right to travel under Article 21. The respondent argued that as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, the authority may refuse to issue a passport if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged against the applicant are pending before a criminal court. The court examined the provision and noted that Section 6(2)(f) uses the word 'may', conferring discretion on the authority, and that the authority must consider the application on its own merits. The court held that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically disentitle an applicant from renewal; the authority must apply its mind and pass a speaking order. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application within two weeks without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the criminal court, and to pass a speaking order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Passport Law - Renewal of Passport - Pending Criminal Proceedings - Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 - The court considered whether the passport authority can refuse renewal solely because criminal proceedings are pending. Held that the authority must consider the application on its own merits and cannot insist on a No Objection Certificate from the court. The pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically disentitle an applicant from renewal unless there is a conviction. (Paras 4-6) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Travel - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. The Passports Act, 1967 provides the framework for such restrictions. The court emphasized that the passport authority must apply its mind and not mechanically reject applications based on pending cases. (Para 5) C) Administrative Law - Mandamus - Direction to Consider Application - The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for renewal/re-issuance of passport within two weeks, without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the criminal court. The authority was directed to pass a speaking order. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Regional Passport Office can refuse to renew a passport solely on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant, without considering the application on merits.
Final Decision
The court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for renewal/re-issuance of passport within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the criminal court, and to pass a speaking order.
Law Points
- Passport renewal cannot be denied solely due to pending criminal proceedings
- Passport Authority must consider application on merits
- No Objection Certificate from court not mandatory for renewal
- Section 6(2)(f) of Passports Act
- 1967 requires conviction for denial
- Article 21 right to travel subject to reasonable restrictions
