Writ Petition No. 6988 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10722 WP No. 6988 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6988 OF 2025 (GM-PASS) BETWEEN: J.JANAARDHANAN S/O JAYARAMAN AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT 16 D BLOCK 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN GURUPRIYA AKASHGANGA APARTMENT CANARA BANK, ISRO AYOUT, VTC JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 078. (BY SRI A.MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI - 110 001 HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE BENGALURU, 80 FEET ROAD KORMANGALA, 8TH BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 095.
Legal Reasoning
5. This Court in the case of SHARATH CHANDRA (supra) has held as follows: “9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel representing the respondent and have perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls for my consideration is, whether the re- issuance or the renewal of the passport can be denied on the score that a FIR is registered against the holder of the passport? 10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and requires no reiteration. The issue lies in a narrow compass, with regard to the action of the respondent in not reissuing the passport as was sought by the petitioner. As observed, the petitioner is a holder of an Indian passport, which was issued to him on 05.04.2013 and its validity was upto 04.04.2023. The petitioner, six months before its expiry i.e., on 10.11.2022, submitted an application seeking renewal of his passport. It is not considered on the score that there are three cases pending against the petitioner, which are noted hereinabove. The tenability or otherwise of such non- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10722 WP No. 6988 of 2025 consideration is required to be noticed, for which certain provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’), are necessary to be considered. Section 6 of the Act deals with refusal of passports / travel documents, it reads as follows: ““6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:— (a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; (c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country; (d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:— (a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India; (b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India; (c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10722 WP No. 6988 of 2025 (d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country; (e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years; (f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; (g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court; (h) the applicant has been that repatriated and has not the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation; reimbursed (i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.” (Emphasis supplied) It is what is the afore-quoted provision is necessary to be considered for the resolution of the issue in the lis. It mandates that a passport or a travel document can be denied to a holder of the passport, if any proceeding is pending, against him before any criminal court in India. The proceedings that are pending against the petitioner are as afore-quoted. Three proceedings against him and, one instituted by him. 11. In furtherance of the afore-quoted statutory provision, the Ministry of External Affairs had issued a - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10722 WP No. 6988 of 2025 notification in Notification No.GSR570(E) on 25.08.1993, as to what must be done in cases where there are pending cases before the criminal court, against the holder of a passport. This is further clarified by another Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, the relevant clause of which, reads as follows: “(vi) In case where the secondary Police verification is also ‘Adverse’, it may be examined whether the details brought out in the police report match the undertaking submitted by the applicant. It may be noted that mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) and that criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before any Court of law and the court has taken cognizance of the same.” (Emphasis supplied) The clarification is rendered by the Ministry of External Affairs that mere filing of FIR and cases under investigation would not come under the purview Section 6(2)(f) of the Act and the criminal proceedings would only be considered when pending, and the concerned Court has taken cognizance of the offence, which would presuppose that the charge sheet has been filed by the Officer in-charge of a police station. 12. In the light of the aforesaid clarification, in cases where the proceedings are pending against the holders of the passports, when they seek renewal or re- issuance, it cannot be denied on the ground that the proceedings are pending against those holders of the passports only in cases, where the proceedings are at the stage of crime, and the concerned criminal Court has not taken cognizance of the offence. Any other proceeding pending invoking any other law, will not become an impediment for the Passport Authorities for issuance / re-issuance / renewal of passport. Therefore, it is expected of the Passport Authorities to act in accordance with the clarification as obtaining in the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 and not deny re- issuance / renewal of passport to those passport holders against whom pending criminal cases are at the stage of investigation, and the concerned Court is not yet take cognizance, and not drive every passport holder to knock - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10722 WP No. 6988 of 2025 at the doors of this Court, for redressal of their grievance.” In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of this Court, which covers the issue in the case at hand on all its fours, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner as the criminal proceedings are still at the stage of crime. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
Arguments
(BY SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10722 WP No. 6988 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION DTD 10.01.2025 FOR RENEWAL OF HIS PASSPORT VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY RENEW THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief: “a. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other direction to consider the petitioner’s application dated 10.01.2025 for renewal of his passport vide Annexure A and consequently renew the passport of the Petitioner. b. Grant such other relief as circumstances and contingencies may permit, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri A. Mahesh Chowdhary, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, Deputy Solicitor General of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the passport of the petitioner is not reissued / renewed by the respondent, on the score of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10722 WP No. 6988 of 2025 4. Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India in all fairness would submit that the issue in the lis is answered by this Court in the case of SHARATH CHANDRASEKHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in ILR 2024 KAR 1208, wherein this Court considering the circular issued by the respondent - Union of India, which directs re- issuance of the passport to those applicants, against whom criminal proceedings are still at the stage of crime.
Decision
ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. Mandamus issues to the respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner seeking renewal / re-issuance of the passport within an outer limit of two weeks from today or if not earlier. c. It is needless to observe that such consideration shall happen only in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 42 CT:SS - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10722 WP No. 6988 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [J JANAARDHANAN VS. UNION OF INDIA] 21.03.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO' The learned counsel for the petitioner has moved the matter 'for being spoken to' on the score that owing to an inadvertent omission in the operative portion of the order, the words grant of 'full validity passport' is missing. In the light of the reasoning rendered in the order, which would be cleared that the petitioner is entitled to a full validity passport, the operative portion stands modified in the following manner. Clause (b) in the operative portion of the order be corrected as under: "b. Mandamus issues to the respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner seeking renewal/re-issuance of a full validity passport, within an outer limit of two weeks from today or if not earlier”. This order may be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 14.03.2025. The corrections shall be given effect to and a certified copy at free of cost be issued to the parties. KG/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE