Justice Amit Rawal, Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, Kerala High Court
Renewal Of Passport Can't Be Denied For Want Of Order By Trial Court Permitting Accused To Leave India: Kerala High Court
|Division Bench of the Kerala High Court noted that the accused has to seek permission from the trial court to travel abroad only after getting the passport.
The Kerala High Court has upheld an order directing re-issuance of passport of a man, who had a Red Corner Notice issued against him. The High Court held that merely because there was no specific order of the Magistrate Court permitting the man to leave India, the renewal of the passport need not be denied.
The Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court was filed by the Union of India against the order of the Single Judge directing the process of the application filed by a man accused of a crime, for the re-issuance of his passport.
The Division Bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan held, “ If so, we are of the view that merely because there is no specific order in Exts. P1 and P2 permitting the 1st respondent to leave abroad, the renewal of the passport of the 1st respondent need not be denied. This is because, we find that the purpose and intent for which GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, has been issued is well served and protected by Exts. P1 and P2 orders.”
Senior Panel Counsel T.C.Krishna represented the Appellants, while Advocate Shahid Azeez represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Passport Officer, as well as the Joint Secretary (PSP) & Chief Passport Officer of the Ministry of External Affairs had rejected the request of the respondent seeking renewal/re-issue of his passport on the ground that a Red Corner Notice, issued by the Interpol based on certain proceedings initiated in Qatar, was in existence. The Authorities had also taken into consideration the fact that the respondent had not obtained permission to travel abroad from the Magistrate Court where criminal cases were pending against him.
The Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated March 26, 2025, directed the appellant Authorities to process the application filed by the respondent for re-issuance of his passport. It was in such circumstances that an Appeal came to be filed before the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench made a reference to GSR 570(E) dated August 25, 1993, issued by the Government of India, which is an exemption to Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act. It permits the citizens of India against whom proceedings in criminal courts are pending to obtain/renew passports if they produce orders from the court concerned, permitting them to depart from India. It was further noticed that the order mentions that the court can specify the period for which the passport has to be issued, and if no time is fixed, it shall be issued for a period of one year.
The Bench noted that the respondent had obtained favourable orders in the form from the Magistrate Courts for renewal of his passport.However, in those, the Magistrate had not granted permission to the respondent to depart from India. It was stated therein that, after getting the passport, the respondent would have to seek permission from the courts before going abroad.
The Bench was of the view that merely because there was no specific order Magistrate Courts permitting the respondent to leave India, the renewal of the passport was not necessarily to be denied. Finding no error in the impugned judgment passed by the Single Judge, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Union Of India v. Muhammed Rafsal (Case No.: WA NO. 1765 OF 2025)
Appearance
Appellants: Senior Panel Counsel T.C.Krishna
Respondents: Advocate Shahid Azeez, Ijas Muhammed