The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be the ground to deny passport facilities to an applicant.

While considering a case of an NDPS accused whose application for the issuance of passport was not accepted by the Passport Office, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the right to personal liberty not only includes the applicant’s right to travel abroad, but also the applicant’s right to possess or hold a passport.

The Single Bench of Justice Harsh Bunger said, “From the above judicial pronouncements, it is apparent that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be the ground to deny passport facilities to an applicant since right to personal liberty not only includes applicant’s right to travel abroad, but also applicant’s right to possess or hold a passport.”

Advocate Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu represented the petitioner, while Central Government Counsel Ayushi Sharma represented the respondents.

Factual Background

The Petitioner has been facing trial in a case registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Owing to the pendency of the case, the petitioner sought permission from the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, to apply for a fresh passport. The Special Court granted permission to the petitioner to apply for a fresh passport, in light of the circular dated August 21, 2014, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs and various judicial pronouncements. The petitioner applied for the issuance of a passport, and vide the impugned communication, the Passport Office directed the petitioner to obtain fresh permission from the trial court, explicitly allowing him to “depart from India” in accordance with Notification No. GSR 570(E) dated August 25, 1993. Thus, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) wherein it has been held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. Reference was also made to the judgment in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020) wherein it has been observed that the Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal.

“Further, keeping in view the observations made the Apex Court in Vangala Kasturi it is clear that if a person convicted of a crime is entitled to seek a passport as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; this Court does not find any reason to hold that the petitioner who is only an accused in the case mentioned above; cannot hold a passport, especially when the trial Court has permitted him to apply for a new passport”, the Bench said.

The Bench also took note of the undertaking given by the Petitioner wherein it was mentioned that in the event the passport is issued to the Petitioner, the same shall remain in the custody of the Trial Court during the pendency of the trial. The petitioner further undertook that in the event of making any program of his travel abroad, he would be bound to get prior permission from the trial court, and the petitioner would be further bound to return to India to rejoin his trial.

The Bench thus disposed of the Petition by asking the Petitioner to submit an undertaking before the Passport Office. The High Court further directed the Regional Passport Office to consider his application for the issuance of a passport within three weeks from the date when he submits certified copies of the undertaking. “However, liberty is granted to the petitioner herein to file an application before the concerned trial Court(s) for seeking permission to travel aboard and it is for the concerned trial Court(s) to consider the same in accordance with law”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Kuldeep Singh v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:067788)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu

Respondents: Central Government Counsel Ayushi Sharma

Click here to read/download Order


Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice Harsh Bunger

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.