DATE: 30/07/2025
COURT: High Court of Rajasthan
BENCH: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
FACTS:
The petitioner filed a writ petition
challenging the rejection of his application for the re-issuance of his
passport by the Regional Passport Office, Kota, through an impugned letter
dated 07.05.2025. The petitioner, who is facing trial under Sections 498-A and
406 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 164/2021 before the Judicial
Magistrate No.3 (North), Kota, intended to travel abroad to Mecca-Madina for
the religious rituals of Haj and Umra Jiyarat. He holds a valid passport (No.
25-1001530353) and had submitted an application before the Trial Court seeking
permission to undertake the said religious travel. The Trial Court, by its
order dated 16.04.2025, disposed of the application with the observation that
if the petitioner applies before the Passport Authority, the authority shall
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Following the court’s direction, the
petitioner approached the Regional Passport Office in Kota, which rejected his
request via the letter dated 07.05.2025, stating that permission for foreign
travel had not been granted. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another
application before the Trial Court seeking explicit permission to travel
abroad, but this application was also rejected, with the Court noting that
permission had already been addressed in the previous order dated 16.04.2025.
The petitioner contends that neither of his applications for permission to
travel abroad were decided on their merits and that he was effectively denied
the opportunity to fulfil his religious obligations despite following the legal
process.
ISSUES:
The primary issue in this case was whether
the petitioner, against whom a criminal trial under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC
was pending, could be denied re-issuance of a passport and permission to travel
abroad for performing religious rituals (Haj and Umra Jiyarat). The petitioner
challenged the letter dated 07.05.2025 issued by the Regional Passport Office,
Kota, denying such permission, and alleged that the denial violated his
fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The case also raised a
procedural issue concerning the clarity and adequacy of trial court orders
regarding permission to travel abroad.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ
petition, quashed the impugned letter dated 07.05.2025 issued by the Regional
Passport Office, and granted the petitioner permission to travel abroad for Haj
and Umra Jiyarat for a period of two months. The Court directed the petitioner
to comply with several conditions to ensure his return and continued
participation in the ongoing trial. Additionally, the Court issued directions
to all subordinate courts to pass clear and specific orders in such
applications to avoid administrative confusion.
The Court reasoned that denial of
permission to travel abroad solely on the basis of a pending criminal case
violates the petitioner’s right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution. Citing the landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India (AIR 1978 SC 597), the Court reiterated that every citizen has a
fundamental right to travel abroad, and restrictions on this right must be
reasonable and procedurally fair. It held that mere pendency of criminal
proceedings cannot automatically justify denial of travel rights unless there
is a substantiated apprehension that the accused may abscond or obstruct the
trial. The 1993 Gazette Notification of the Ministry of External Affairs also
envisages the grant of permission to travel abroad, even to an accused, if the
competent court permits it.
The Court criticized the Trial Court for
not passing a clear and specific order on the petitioner’s application and
observed that such casual or technically flawed orders create confusion for
authorities like the Passport Office. The Court clarified that in the previous
order dated 16.04.2025, the Trial Court had merely directed the petitioner to
approach the Passport Authority but did not explicitly grant or deny permission
to travel abroad. As a result, the Passport Office justifiably denied the application
in the absence of a definitive judicial direction. To prevent such procedural
ambiguities in future, the Court mandated that subordinate courts must issue
unambiguous orders while dealing with applications seeking permission to travel
abroad, especially when religious or constitutional rights are at stake.
ANALYSIS:
This case underscores the critical balance
courts must maintain between safeguarding an individual's fundamental rights
and ensuring the integrity of the judicial process. The Rajasthan High Court
rightly emphasized that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution includes the freedom to travel abroad, even for an accused person,
particularly for religious purposes such as Haj or Umra Jiyarat. The Court's
reliance on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reinforces the principle that restrictions
on this right must be based on compelling and lawful grounds, not merely on the
existence of pending criminal proceedings. The judgment acknowledges that
allowing travel under judicial safeguards such as undertakings, time limits,
and passport surrender, ensures accountability without arbitrarily infringing
upon constitutionally protected liberties.
Moreover, the case exposes procedural gaps
in trial court practices regarding applications for foreign travel by accused
persons. The High Court’s criticism of the trial court’s vague and technically
flawed orders highlights the need for clarity and precision in judicial
directives, particularly in matters with constitutional implications. By
directing subordinate courts to issue explicit orders in such cases, the Court
not only resolved the petitioner’s grievance but also aimed to prevent
administrative confusion in future cases. This case, therefore, is significant
both for reaffirming individual rights and for enhancing procedural discipline
within the judicial system.
info@adhwaitha.com