Trial court permission to renew passport not needed when criminal proceedings stayed: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently directed a passport officer to consider the renewal of a passport without insisting on permission from the trial court since the criminal proceedings against the concerned person had been stayed [Kasturi Rajupeta v. Union of India and Ors].Justice Krishna S Dixit said that getting permission from the trial court to renew the passport of the petitioner, against whom pending criminal proceedings had been stayed, is not required. "It (the Government notification) stipulates that the accused seeking issuance of a passport or its renewal has to obtain an order at the hands of the criminal Court concerned permitting him to travel to a foreign land. However, this Notification has to be construed consistent with the Fundamental Right of a person to travel abroad and of possibility of its invocation, as discussed above. When all further proceedings in the criminal case are interdicted by a higher Court, this Notification cannot be pressed into service to deny petitioner’s request for renewal/re-issuance of passport," the Court said. .The petitioner had approached the court challenging an endorsement issued by the Regional Passport Officer when she applied for renewal of her passport. The endorsement had asked her to submit the final disposal order of a criminal case pending against her, or seek permission of the trial court to process her passport application, while noting that the validity of the passport would be subject to conditions mentioned in a 1993 gazette notification..The High Court at the outset noted that the right to travel abroad is a facet of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution while referencing the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India. .Further, the endorsement was made on the grounds that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. However, the Court noted that criminal case had been challenged before the High Court, and the criminal proceedings had been stayed. This being the position, the petitioner cannot be asked to seek permission from the trial judge for renewal of her passport, the single-judge held. .The 1993 notification would be applicable in ordinary circumstances when criminal proceedings are not stayed and won't apply in a case in which the hands of the trial judge are tied, the Court said. "A contention to the contrary amounts to asking the citizen to do an impossible act. Ordinarily, an act impossible of performance is treated as either having been accomplished or waived.... Thus, the insistence on production of an order as mentioned in the impugned endorsement is not justified," the High Court held..Accordingly, the Court ruled that the present petitioner's request for renewal or re-issuance of a passport cannot be denied and directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider her renewal request within a period of six weeks, without insisting on an order from the criminal court. .While disposing of the petition, the Court stipulated that the petitioner should not travel abroad without leave of the concerned criminal court, regardless of whether her passport is issued. .Senior Advocate CV Nagesh along with advocate Ajay Kadkol appeared for the petitioner while Assistant Solicitor General Shanti Bhushan H represented the respondents. .[Read Order]