Dr. Medarmetla Manju Bhargavi v. '1 . The Union of lndia

Order

..... Pctitioner Respondents Petitioner, a rnedical practitioner holding an M.D. in Internal Medicine, who is managing Dr. Bhargavi Diabetes Center at \rijayawada, applied for renewai of her passport bearing No. 2786O151 under File No. VJ2O7736034 1525 dtrted

31.01.2025 belore the passpolt authorities at Vijayawada. 'Ihe authoritics, by the notice dated 21.02.2O25, inrpugned in this Writ Petition, declined to process the Application and required her to obtain prior permission from the Court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, on the ground of pendenc.v of criminal proceedir-rgs in C.C. No. 3546 of 2021. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner is before this Court 2 \ \l - for a declaration that impugned action vioiates I rticles 19 and 2 1 of the Constitution

1.1 It is stated, during police verif t atron, it u'as reported that Crime No. 126 of 2006 of S II Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sec ,ions 406 and 42O read with Section 34 of the Indian Pr t al Code, had culminated in filing of charge sheet and was 1r nding as C.C. No. 3546 of 2O2l before the Court of the learn: I III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hydr:r t bad. Based on this report, the 3'd respondent issued comm t 30.05.2023 seeking clarification from petit r nication dzrted ner rcgarding pendcncy oi criminal case. Petilioner is stated tr rave submitted the detailed explanation dated O6.O6.2023 tlr .l she became aware of the criminal proceedings only during f ( Lice vcrification

process. Upon approaching the trial Court for a ertified copy of the charge sheet, she was informed that origir r rl case Iile was missing from the court records. She ther3 rfter, filed an Application seeking her discharge from the c'r ,e and another Application seeking 'No Objection Certificate' frr: the purpose of passport renewal. However, due to non-availir ; file, no orders have been passed on either ! lity of the case pplication. The t t \ _) .t 1 docket entnes available on ecourts portal reflect that the file remains untraceable ' As the renewal Application dated 17 'O2 '2023 was 1.2. not acted upon, petitioner approached the High Court of Andhra Prad.esh in Writ Petition No' 12922 of 2022 By order dated O2.O7 .2024, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the 3'd respondent to process the Application wilhout raising objectrons on the basis of pendency of C C' No- 3546 of 2021. Trle Court clarified that prior permission from the criminal Court would be required only if petitioner intended to trzrvel abroad and that she should remain available for appearance before the trial court as and rvhen required' Pursuant to the said order' the 3'd respondent 1.3. renewed petitioner's passport only for a limited period of one year from O2.Oa '2024 to 01'O8'2025 and issued passport bearing No. 27880151' Thereafter' she submitted the present Application. [n response, the Authorities issued the letter dated lo.o2.2o25againseekingclarilicationregardingpendencyof criminal case. Petitioner' it is stated' personally appeared before the 3'd responde tt ot 2l 'O2'2025 and clarihed that al1 therelevantdocumentshadalreadybeensubmittedearlier,and that the limited renewal granted earlier itself demonstrated !F G ! -_-!!a!aF!r-4,ff*- 4 acknowledgment of pending proceedings, hence, It luested that this Application bc trealed as continuation of the r: rlier reneu'al process.

1.4. Dcspite the above, the impugned noti(:r was issucd. Challenging thc said notice, petitioncr filed WriL Petition No 6241 of 2025 before the High Court of Andhrt Pradesh al Amaravati. Bv order dated

18.03.2025, the Wr i Pctilion u as disposed oI granting liberty to petitioner t() :) rproach the appropriate forttm. in vierv o[ the judgment rr thc Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 383 of 2024 daltr, l 29 .tO.'.2024, interpreting Section 6(2)(fl of Lhe Passports Act, t(>7. It is the specihc case of petitioner, despite pendency , f the same criminal casc, her passport was renewed itt. f 13 without objection.

1.5. Petilioner contends that she was gra:' -cd U.S. visa dated 28.10.2022 and received several international professional invitations, including from the Amc'r :an Diabetes a Association and an invitation dated 20 .O2.2O24 o irttend the Research at Nutrition 2025 conference s(] I rrluled from

31.o5.2o25 to 03.06.2025 at Orlando, Floridr'. Th(j Iimitcd renewal of her passport has adversely affectt:tl rr: r ability tcr ) ) 5 ) obtain visas and participate in international conferences, lame nts petitioner. i .6. According to petitioner, charge sheet r,vas hled with unexplaincd delay of nearly fifteen years and non-availability of case hle resulted in delay in concluding the case. She submits that mere pendency of criminal proceedings, particularly in the absence of conviction or any express statutory prohibition, cannol constitute a valid ground for refusal of renewal of a passport. Relying on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, i967 and judicial precedents in Maneka Gandhi u. Union of Indial and Satish Chand.ra Verma u. Union o;f India2, petitioner asserts th:Lt the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty and that renewal of a passport cannot be denied on the solc ground of pendency of a criminal case.

2. In the counter, respondents stated that during verificalion, police authorities submitted an adverse report that petitioner was arrayed as accused in C.C. No. 3546 of 2O2L on the hle of the Court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court, Nampally, Hyderabad; however, she supprcssed existence of the said criminal proceedings while submitting the Application. Hence, respondent office issued 'AIR 1978 sc 597 ' 20t9 scc online SC 2o4B { 6 show-cause notice dated 30 'o5 2023 ' Aggrieved tr-' the same' petitioner filed Writ Petition No 12922 ol 2024 Purr;r 'ant to the directions uide ordet dated' 02 07 '2024 and' in accor lance with rules governing tssuance of passPor1;, the 3'd the extant No.27)JOL1L on issued Passport bearing with limited validity of one year i e' ' up to respondent

02.O8.2024 o 1.08.2025. rpplied for

2.1 . submitted 525 dated ' criminal It is further stated, petitioner agaln her under File No V'12O7736O3: renewal of 3l .O1.2O25 , without disclosing pendency ' proceedings. Subsequently' thc police authoritir': another adverse verilication report mentioning case was pending' Since petitioner suppressecl criminal case, thc 3'd respondent again issuerl shorv-cause notice dated 7l--O2'2025 for which petiLion': submitted explanation ot 2l 'O2 2025 On consideration of 'r nich, the 3'd respondent passed the impugned order directing rcr to obtain prior permission from the competent criminal C I lrt to enable .l zrt criminal lendencY of renewalofpassportinaccordancewiththeapplic,rrlerules. Instead of complying with the said aclv ce' petitioner 2.2. lrled Writ Petition No' 6241 of 2025 wherein the {igh Court of AndhraPradeshdirectedhertoapproachtheapllopriate'C-ourt I I \ I 7 ) by hling an Application for redressal of her grievance. Despite the said direction, she has chosen to hle the present Writ Petition. According to respondents, the impugned action was taken strictly in accordance with the extant rules and regulations governing issuance and renewal of passports. It is asserted, responsibility lies upon petitioner to seek discharge from the charges in C.C. No. 3546 of 2021 for further processing of her passport application.

2.3 . Responde nts rely upon the Notification dated

25.08.1993 issued by lhe Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, which mandates that persons against whom criminal cases are pending must produce orders from the Court wtrere such cases are pendir-rg, permitting them to depart from the country. In the present case, petitioner is required to furnish permission from the competent criminal Court where C.C. No. 3546 of 2O2l is pending for lurther processing of passport renewal application. On these grounds, it is contended a that writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

3. Sri Sathakarni K., learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble High Coirrt of Madhya /'t 8 Pradesh (Indore Bench) in Hardik Shah v. Unlc r o;f Indlae and the Hon'ble High Court of Mad-as i -r Karti P. Chidam.baram u. The Regional Passport OlJicerl

4. Heard Sri A. Nehru, learned Standinl, Cour-rsel for Central Government.

5. A perusal of the material on record shows that petiLioner is a passport holder since 2OO4, her p :ssport was renewed in 2O13 notwithstanding pendency rl the same criminal case and pursuant to the order clatcd 0 2 Writ Petition No. 12922 of 2022, respondenrs

07.2024 in t.hemsclves renewed the passport tn 2024 with limited validity. I is also not disputed that charge sheet in Crime No. 126 of 2Ot t6 r,r,as hled after fifteen years and that the case file is presently r ntraceabie. It is to be seen, the High Court o[ Andhra pradest in its order dated 02.O7.2O24 categorically held that prior perrri lsion would be required only if petitioner intends to travel abroac and not as a condition precedent for renewal of passport. [! spondents, having acted upon the said order and reneu,ed the rassport in 2024, cannot now take the same objection in res rect of the subsequent renewal Application, particularly wher the tactual srtuation remains unchanged I I t AIR 2022 Mp 5? o w.P.No. I I9o ol2o24 -7 9 / / //,/ ,/ 6 Section 6(2)(fl of the 1967 Act empowers the Authority to refuse issuance of a passport where criminal proceedings are pending, but the provision has been consistently interpreted by constitutional Courts to require a reasonable, proportionate, and non-arbitrary exercise of discretion. The judgments referred to supra tn Maneka Gandhi and Sattsh Chandra Verma's cases make it clear that it is the fundamental right of a person to hold a passport. and freedom to go abroad as per his/her wish under Article 21 and that restrictions must be just, fair, and reasonable. In the present case, there is no allegation that petitioner violated any court order, attempted to abscond or misused her passport. On the contrary, the material placed on record demonstrates her continuous residence, prolessional engagement and compliance with legal processes. Though respotrdents relied on the Notification

7. dated 25.08.1993, this Court is of the view that the same cannot override the constitutional ma-ndate or the binding judicial directions issued in the Writ Petitions hled by petitioner earlier, in view of the judgments relied on by learned counsel for petitioner, stated supra. ln Hardik Shorh's ccse, it has been held that 'a plain reod-ing of this judgment make it clear that ( t0 uaious Diuision Benches of Bombay High Cct ,t has taken consistent uieu that aforesoid Gazette NotiJicat impediment for reneu.ting the passport for a peit,t tn is not an 'of 10 gears. Indeed, it uas obserued that the Gouentment is t t.tttg bound to foLlou the pinciples and directions laid down- ,r the preuious judgments and reneu.t passports for o period oJ Karti P. Chidambaram's case, it has been obse . en aears.' In ed as under: .......para 84 to 88

8. On the other hand, learned Centr,r Govcrnment Standing Counsel relies on the Division Bench .jl r gme r-rt of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 829 of 2024 whereiri il ras been held that the direction to renew the passport in contrl ,e ntion of the statutory provision i.e. Section 6(2)(f) of the 1') 17 Act is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence, liberty was servecl to the party to approach criminal Court for expeditious c isposal of the cases pending against him. Here, in the instant c e se, somewhal peculiar circumstances exist. In the crime of 200i; charge sheet t was liled in 2021 without explaining the extraor,l nary delay of 15 years. Further, when petitioner hled an Appl ( rtion seeking issuance of certified copy of the charge shec: the Section concerned of the trial Court expressed its inabilit to issue the same citing that the case hle was missing li I n the Court ) I records. Then, petitioner filed an Application to discharge her from the said case and another Application to issue 'No Objection Cerlificate' lor passport renewal in 2O23 itself' however ow'ing to non-availability of the main case file' no orders have been passed and both the Applications are pending consideration. In those circumstances, respondents insisting on prior court permission as a condition precedent for renewal amountsLounreasonablerestric[iononpelitioner'spersonal liberty. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No' 12922 of 2024, by order dated 02'O7 2024 directed petitioner's renewal Application be processed and her passport be renewed without raising any objection on the ground of pending criminal case and pursuant to the said direc[ion, respondents renewed the passport for one year which is nothing but clear misinterpretation of the order. Here, it is apt to t'ott tht Coordinate Bench g. judgmenL ol this Court in writ Petition No' 35056 of 2023' wherein, in similar circurnstances, it was directed that Application for respondent authorities shall consider the i \ I I I issuance of passport on certain conditions' t2

10. In the light of the above, this Court is rf the opinion ( that the impugned notice dated 21.02.2025 is \n ble to be set asrde. 1 1. The Writ Petition is therefore, allor,r,erl setting aside the notice dated 21.O2.2025. Respondents are dire :ted to renew petitioner's passport bearing No. 27880151 purst.r irt to File No. YJ2O7736O341525 dated 31.O1.2025 in accorrlrr. for the normal period of ten -vears. Petitione' Application before the learned Magistrate seckin s rr:e rvith larv, sha 1l hle an rcrmission to travel abroad and it is for the learned Magistrate r consider the same in accordance with law. No costs-

12. Consequently, the miscellaneous AI plications, if any shall stand closed. SD/-M. NAGAMANIT - ASIJ STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ \ , \QECTION OFFTCER To, 'I . The Principal Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Block Secretariat Raisina Hills, New Delhi Aq (.r ral Affairs, South

2. The Chief Passport Officer, i Joint Secretary (PSP) anc )PO At PSP Division, Ministry of External Affairs Room No. 27, Patiala House, Tilak Marg New Delhi - 110001

3. The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Offic t , at 4th Floor, Stalin Central D. No. 27 - 37 - 158, Govemorpet, M.G.Road,'/ ayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520002, lndia

4. One CC to SRI SATHAKARNI K, Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CCto SRI ANGOTHU NEHRU, SC FORCENTRIT GOVT [OPUC] Two CD Copies

6. PMK LS b- HIGH COURT (: C TODAY DATED:30 t12t2025 ORDER WP.No.17077 of ZO2S 1 T E T4n t) -1. .Y \,. / it:l ?t')! .i'r) +. J,,' r(1 l ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS c & -l