Right To Personal Liberty Includes Right To Hold Or Possess Passport: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be considered a valid ground to deny passport facilities to a person.

Referring to a catena of judgments, Justice Harsh Bunger in his order said,

"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."

The Court was hearing a plea filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue passport to one Kuldeep Singh.

Singh was facing Trial under Section 15 of NDPS Act, owing to the pendency of the case, the petitioner sought permission from the Additional Sessions Judge, to apply for a fresh passport.

Moga Court  granted permission to the petitioner to apply for fresh passport in view of the circular dated 21.08.2014 issued by Ministry of External Affairs and various judicial pronouncement.

Pursuant to the trial court's permission, the petitioner duly submitted an application for issuance of a passport on 12.03.2025. However, the passport was not granted. Initially, the Passport Office issued a file closure notice on 30.03.2025, followed by a request for clarifications on 29.04.2025 in view of an adverse police verification report.

Ultimately, the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, directed the petitioner to obtain fresh permission from the trial court explicitly allowing him to “depart from India” 

Counsel for the petitioner, Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu contended that the impugned communication issued by the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

Central Government Counsel, Ayushi Sharma while opposing the petition, places reliance on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, asserting that a passport cannot be issued unless specific permission to travel abroad has been granted.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [reported in 1978 (1) SCC 248] to underscore 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.

Reliance was also placed on Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 (15) SCC 570 wherein the Apex Court stated that, "The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

The judge also considered the observation in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation", (2020) and  said,

"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.

Consequently, the Court disposed of the plea with a slew of directions including directions to the Regional Passport Office to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of passport in the light of the observations made by the Court. 

It also asked the petitioner to submit an undertaking along with an affidavit before the trial Court concerned in the cases wherein petitioner is facing trial, stating that he will not leave India during pendency of the said case without permission of the Court and that he will co-operate with trial Court in concluding the proceedings in the said case.

Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Central Government Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3.

Title: Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India and others

Click here to read/download the order