The Rajasthan High Court held that denial of passport renewal merely because criminal cases are pending violates the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21, where the accused has not been convicted.
Rajasthan High Court Quashes CJM’s Order
The Rajasthan High Court recently set aside an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota, refusing to grant a No Objection Certificate for passport renewal.
A Bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that denial of passport renewal only because criminal cases are pending violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court said the right to travel abroad forms part of the right to life and personal liberty.
Petitioner Faced 23 Criminal Cases
The petitioner, Surendra Pal Singh Sahni, is a 66-year-old man. He faces allegations relating to cheating and forgery.
Around 23 criminal cases are pending against him before the trial court. However, none of these cases has ended in conviction.
During the proceedings, the petitioner sought permission for renewal of his passport. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected his application on April 8, 2024, mainly due to the number of pending cases.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Court Notes No Conviction Against Petitioner
At the outset, the High Court noted that the criminal trials were still pending. Therefore, the Court said the petitioner could not be treated as convicted.
The Court also considered the petitioner’s submission that his children live abroad. He wanted to visit them, and therefore sought renewal of his passport.
Moreover, the Court found that the Magistrate had not properly examined the legal position before rejecting the request.
Right To Travel Abroad Protected Under Article 21
The High Court referred to Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967. It also considered relevant decisions of various High Courts and the Supreme Court.
The Court observed that the State can restrict the right to travel abroad only through a just, fair and reasonable procedure.
Further, the Court held that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot become an automatic ground to refuse passport renewal.
Magistrate Failed To Apply Relevant Law
The High Court found the Magistrate’s order legally unsustainable. It said the order lacked proper reasoning.
The Court further held that the Magistrate failed to consider the provisions governing passport renewal for an accused person.
Accordingly, the Court said the renewal request should have been examined on merits. It should also have been considered in light of the Passports Act and binding precedents.
Passport Authority Directed To Decide Fresh Application
The High Court set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota.
It directed the competent passport authority to process the petitioner’s fresh renewal application within 30 days from the date of submission.
The Court also directed the authority to consider the application strictly under Section 5 of the Passports Act. It added that the authority should not be influenced by the CJM’s earlier order.
Case Details
Case Title: Surendra Pal Singh Sahni v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 169
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Bench: Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali
Relevant Provisions: Article 21 of the Constitution; Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita; Sections 5 and 6(2)(e), Passports Act, 1967
Appearances
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni, Advocate; Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor
