Kerala High Court: Red Corner Notice By Interpol Pending Against An Indian Citizen No Ground To Deny Them Passport Services
The Kerala High Court allowed the Writ Petition challenging the Order of the Passport Office that denied the re-issue of a passport to the Petitioner.
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the mere fact that a red corner notice by the Interpol is pending against a citizen of India is no ground to deny passport services to them.
The Court allowed the Writ Petition challenging the Order of the Passport Office that denied the re-issue of a passport to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, accused of two criminal cases in India, also had a red corner notice issued against him by the Interpol on account of certain proceedings initiated against him by the Law Enforcement agencies in Qatar.
A Single Bench of Justice Gopinath P held, “In my view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the denial of passport services to the petitioner because a red corner notice has been issued would be tantamount to a deprivation of the right of personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Senior Advocate S. Sanal Kumar appeared for the Petitioner, while SCGC T.C. Krishna represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner sought re-issue of his passport, relying on permissions granted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy, and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur. The Court in Chalakudy permitted the renewal/re-issue for three years, while the North Paravur court allowed it for five years.
However, the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority found that since the Petitioner had not produced any permission to travel abroad from either of the Courts and also on account of the red corner notice issued against him, he was not entitled to a re-issue of the passport.
Court’s Observations
The High Court referred to Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 (the Act), which pertains to the refusal of passports when criminal proceedings are pending, but also noted the provisions of the G.S.R 570(E) issued by the government which provides for exemptions under certain conditions.
“I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the competent among the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for re-issue of passport. The orders obtained by the petitioner from…both the Courts have granted permission for the issue of a passport to the petitioner though both Courts have clearly made it a condition that the petitioner shall obtain permission of the Court before traveling abroad,” the Court held.
The Court clarified that “the fact that Exts.P1 and P2 orders do not specifically grant permission to the petitioner to travel abroad need not be a reason to deny the re-issue of the passport, especially when the petitioner has undertaken that he will not travel abroad without obtaining permission from the Courts in question.”
The Bench referred to the decision on the Supreme Court in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra (2009) wherein it was held that “mere issuance of a red corner notice is not sufficient for the arrest of a person in India.”
Relating on the same, the Bench held that “the mere fact that a red corner notice is pending against a citizen of India is no ground to deny passport services to him.”
“In such circumstances, the denial of passport services to the petitioner would amount to a negation of the right of the petitioner to travel abroad, which has been held to be a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Exts.P10 and P15 orders are quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to process the application filed by the petitioner for the re-issue of his passport in accordance with the law and subject to compliance with usual formalities.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Muhammed Rafsal v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:26159)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate S. Sanal Kumar; Advocates T.J. Seema, Bhavana Velayudhan, Devavrathan S., Anu Balakrishnan Nambiar
Respondents: SCGC T.C. Krishna; Government Pleader Sreejith V.S.
