The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1460 of 2025 Fakira Karna …. Petitioner Mr.Subrat Kumar Nanda, Advocate State of Odisha …. Opp. Party -versus- Mr.S.J.Mohanty, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
Order No. ORDER 17.04.2025 01. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Attabira in CMC No.70 of 2023 whereby his application for grant of no objection for applying the Passport has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking me to Annexure-5 submits that the Passport Authority has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of Passport vide its letter dated 14.06.2023, inter alia, stating as under: “Police submitted Adverse Police Verification Report (PVR) where it has been mentioned that “Attabira PS Case No.118, Dt.08.07.2011, US- 420, 409, 406, 468, 477(A), 34 IPC. The said case is handed over to Sri K.K. Jena, OPS, DSP, CIDCB Page 1 of 6 Cuttack and tagged the case record with CIDCB PS Case No.36 of 2011 vide Memo No.38484 of CID (inv), dt.10.10.11.” In view of the above you are advised to submit proper supporting documents along with explanation, which are as follow:- (i) If the Criminal Case in which you are involved is at investigation stage in police station, then you are advised to submit proper explanation along with copy of FIR, if any Or (ii) If the criminal case in which you are involved is either charge-sheeted or trial is pending in Court or subjudice in nature or court has taken cognizance, then you are advised to submit court permission or NOC from concerned court in order to obtain passport as per guidelines contained in Government dt. notification GSR 25/08/1993. In addition to this you are also requested to submit Undertaking as per guidelines of this notification. 570(E) Or (iii) If judgment has been passed by the Hon’ble Court in the criminal case in which you are involved, then you are advised to submit copy of Final Court Judgment order. In the above connection you are requested to submit documents as mentioned above. Kindly visit Passport Office, Bhubaneswar for enquiry by taking online enquiry appointment with required documents.” 3. After receipt of the said letter dated 14.06.2023, the petitioner moved an application before the Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Attabira, inter alia, praying as under: “It is therefore prayed that the permission be kindly granted to the Petitioner to obtain the Passport from the Passport Authority of India by passing Page 2 of 6 suitable order in favour of the petitioner.” 4. The application of the petitioner was heard and the Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Attabira in CMC No.70 of 2023 has turned down the application. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same and has filed the present application. 5. The right to hold a passport is an essential facet of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The mere pendency of a criminal case, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny or restrict the right of an individual to possess a passport. Holding a passport does not, by implication, amount to an intention to travel abroad or to evade the due process of law. 6. In this case the petitioner wishes to travel abroad, it is incumbent upon him to seek prior permission from the competent court. The present request is merely for the issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate' for the purpose of obtaining or renewing the passport, and not for the purpose of immediate travel outside the country. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248, has held that the right to hold a passport and travel is fundamental and an individual cannot be prevented from traveling abroad unless there exists a law that authorizes the State to impose such a Page 3 of 6 restriction, and that law must provide a procedure that is fair, reasonable, and just. Paragraph 5 of this judgment is pertinent, and it is quoted below. 21, that Parliament "Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports, Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law.” comply with any Similar view has been echoed by the Telangana High Court in Venkata Siva Kumar Yadhanapudi vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine TS 402, and has held that pendency of a criminal case could not be ground to deny passport facilities to petitioner since petitioner’s right to personal liberty not only included petitioner’s right to travel abroad, but also petitioner’s right to possess or hold a Page 4 of 6 passport. 8. It is also relevant to note that Orissa High Court in Ashok Kumar Sipani vs. Union of India and another passed in W.P (C) No. 30881 of 2022 held thus:- “It would be absurd to hold that pendency of criminal case, as referred to in Section-6, would have a different consequence than Section-10. Evidently, only the action to be taken would be different, as both the provisions operate at different stages. However, the spirit behind the two provisions remains the same, i.e., effect of pendency of a criminal case on renewal of passport and on an existing passport. That apart, there is no absolute bar in the Act for issuing and renewing the passport on the ground of pendency of criminal case. As already stated, the provision under Section-10(3) is not mandatory, but discretionary. So, if the provisions of the Act are read as a whole, it would imply that mere pendency of criminal case cannot, in all cases, lead to impounding of the Passport.” 9. The right to hold or possess a passport by an Indian citizen is not merely a statutory entitlement under the Passports Act, 1967, but is also intrinsically linked to the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that the right to travel, particularly abroad, is a component of personal liberty. While the right to travel overseas may not be Page 5 of 6 an absolute right and can be curtailed by statutory authorities under specific circumstances, the right to apply for, hold, and possess a passport, in itself, cannot be arbitrarily denied or revoked merely on the ground that a criminal case is pending, whether at the stage of investigation or trial. 10. There is no legal impediment in granting a passport to the petitioner. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that presumption of innocence operates in favor of accused until proven guilty in a court of law. Therefore, unless and until the guilt of the accused is established through due legal process, no adverse inference should be drawn solely on account of a pending case. Hence, the impugned order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Attabira in CMC No.70 of 2023 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to pass necessary orders in that regard. 11. The petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh application before the learned trial Court reiterating his prayer. If such application is moved by the petitioner before the trial Court, necessary orders be passed in that regard by the learned trial Court. 12. With the aforementioned observation, the CRLMC is disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Judge Reason: Authentication Subhasis Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 23-Apr-2025 10:36:11 (S.S. Mishra) Page 6 of 6