Leena Manimekalai passport impounded for defamation but people accused of heinous crimes face no such action: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has opined that the act of passport authority in impounding the passport of filmmaker Leena Manimekalai appeared to be very strange, since she was accused only of criminal defamation based on a private complaint (Leena Manimekalai vs. The Regional Passport Officer)..Justice M Dhandapani noted that the passport authority seldom impounds passports even in offences of criminal nature with far-reaching social impact, yet under a private complaint it impounded the passport in the present case.“Offences of criminal nature, which have far reaching consequences and more penal in nature, which affects the society, wherein persons who have committed such heinous offences, being holders of passport, in such of those cases, seldom the passport authority, invoking its powers u/s 10 (3) (e) of the Act, impounds the passport of such of those individuals,” the Court said.The observations were part of the judgment allowing Manimekalai's plea against passport impoundment and directing the authorities to return her passport.The passport authority had impounded her passport in relation to an alleged offence of defamation arising from a private complaint.The private complaint was filed by film director and producer Susi Ganeshan, against whom Manimekalai had levelled sexual harassment allegations in 2018..The single-judge in his judgment, criticised the acts of the passport authority stating that the impoundment was without any “rhyme or reason” after a lapse of four years from its issuance.However, the Court refrained from further censure citing “judicial discipline” as the reason..The observations of the Court appeared to be in agreement with the contention of the petitioner’s counsel. It was submitted that if the passport authority impounded passports of those individuals who allegedly committed the act of defamation criminalised under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and construed the same as a criminal offence, then a chunk of passport-holders would lose their passport as the social media tag under which the petitioner allegedly defamed the second party ran quite long..After hearing all parties at length, the Court had reserved orders on 18 November and gave its decision on 3 December..Advocates Abdukumar and D Alexis Sudhakar appeared for the petitioner. The respondent was represented by Government Standing Counsel Infant Dinesh..[Read Judgment]