2024:MHC:1612

W.P.No.1190 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 28.03.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

WP.No.1190 of 2024

Karti P.Chidambaram ... Petitioner

Vs.

The Regional Passport Officer, Chennai

Regional Passport Office,
No.2 & 3, 4th Floor,
Old No.785, New No.158,
Rayala Towers,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the
petitioner's online application dated 02.01.2024 and re-issue/renew the
Petitioner's passport bearing No.Z6044131 for the normal period of ten years
from 05.03.2024 as per Rule 12(1) of the Passport Rules, 1980 within a time
frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Wilson
Senior Counsel
for Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan

For Respondent : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan

Additional Solicitor General
Assisted by
Dr.G.Babu
Senior Panel Counsel

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

ORDER
The petitioner is the holder of passport bearing No.Z2825031, issued on

06.03.2014 with validity till 05.03.2024. He is a Member of Parliament (Lok

Sabha) having been duly elected from the Sivagangai Constituency in the

general elections held in 2019.

2. As per the counter filed by the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai,

sole respondent, there are six cases pending as against the petitioner, details of

which are below:

i. FIR No.RC-DAI 2011-A-0022 (Charge sheet filed & taken

cognizance by Spl. Judge (PC Act), CBI-09 (MP’s/MLA’s cases),
Rouse Courts, New Delhi)
ii. ECIR/05/DZ/2012/DD(RS)/1286-87/2012 (Charge sheet filed &
taken cognizance by Spl.Judge (PC Act), CBI-09 (MP’s/MLA’s
cases), Rouse Courts, New Delhi)
iii. FIR No.RC 220 2017 E 0011 (Charge sheet filed & taken
cognizance by Spl.Judge (PC Act), CBI-09 (MP’s/MLA’s cases),
Rouse Courts, New Delhi)
iv. ECIR/07/HIU/2017 (Charge sheet filed & taken cognizance by Spl.
Judge (PC Act), CBI-09 (MP’s/MLA’s cases), Rouse Courts, New
Delhi)
v. FIR No.190/2014 (Madras High Court)
vi. FIR No.217 2015 A 0111 (petitioner not named as accused in
charge sheet filed by CBI)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

3. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (C) No.739 of 2018

before the Delhi High Court which had been transferred to the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and numbered as Transfer Case (Crl.) Nos. 3 and 4 of 2018

challenging the initiation of cases by the Enforcement Directorate (in short

‘ED’).

4. The Delhi High Court had, on 09.03.2018, granted an interim stay of

the ED taking any coercive action against the petitioner upon condition that the

petitioner should deposit his passport with the Assistant Director of ED.

5. The petitioner has been approaching the Special Judge (PC Act)

(CBI)-09, Delhi as well as the Supreme Court seeking permission to travel

abroad and permission has been granted as follows:

S.No. Date of the Order granting Period for which permission

permission to travel was granted to travel
abroad
1. 20.11.2017 01.12.2017 - 10.12.2017
2. 16.02.2018 17.02.2018 - 28.02.2018
3. 18.05.2018 19.05.2018 - 27.05.2018
4. 18.05.2018 10.06.2018 - 22.06.2018
5. 23.07.2018 24.07.2018 - 31.07.2018
6. 23.07.2018 15.08.2018 - 31.08.2018
7. 18.09.2018 20.09.2018 - 01.10.2018
8. 30.01.2019 10.02.2019 - 26.02.2019
9. 30.01.2019 23.03.2019 - 31.03.2019
10. 07.05.2019 13.05.2019 - 21.05.2019
11. 07.05.2019 09.06.2019 - 16.06.2019
12. 14.02.2020 18.02.2020 - 01.03.2020

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

13. 22.02.2021 01.03.2021 - 23.06.2021

14. 25.10.2021 25.10.2021 - 21.11.2021
15. 01.02.2022 10.02.2022 - 28.02.2022
16. 23.03.2022 25.03.2022 - 10.04.2022
17. 23.03.2022 09.05.2022 - 24.05.2022
18. 23.03.2022 05.06.2022 - 15.07.2022
19. 23.03.2022 25.09.2022 - 10.10.2022
20. 23.03.2022 19.10.2022 - 25.11.2022
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-09, ROUSE AVENUE
COURTS, DELHI
21. 30.01.2023 12.02.2023 - 01.03.2023
22. 03.04.2023 09.04.2023 - 22.04.2023
23. 11.05.2023 20.05.2023 - 31.05.2023
24. 12.06.2023 25.06.2023 - 17.07.2023
25. 25.08.2023 r/w11.09.2023 22.09.2023 - 01.10.2023
26. 16.10.2023 21.10.2023 - 01.11.2023
27. 07.11.2023 11.11.2023 - 20.11.2023
28. 19.12.2023 26.12.2023 - 28.12.2023

6. I.A.No.15521 of 2021 had been filed seeking permission to travel

between 01.03.2021 and 23.06.2021 and was ordered on 22.02.2021. The

petitioner’s request was accepted upon imposition of stringent conditions, one

of the conditions being that the passport which was in the custody of ED shall

be handed over to the petitioner who shall surrender the same after the

scheduled travel was concluded.

7. Even during the tenure of the passport originally, the petitioner had

exhausted the pages therein and had applied to the sole respondent, Regional

Passport Officer, Chennai for issuance of additional pages. A new passport

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

came to be issued on 05.03.2021 bearing No.Z6044131 with validity till

04.03.2022 only, that is, for a period of one year.

8. To a query from the petitioner on 09.03.2021 as to why the tenure of

the passport had been curtailed and reminder dated 08.04.2021, a response was

received from the respondent citing GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and the

order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 22.02.2021 in I.A.No.15521 of 2021

in T.C.(Crl.) No.4 of 2018, where there is a direction to permit the petitioner to

travel for a stipulated length of time.

9. The petitioner relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in

Narendra K.Ambwani V. Union of India1 which the respondent distinguished

vide letter dated 24.08.2021 pointing out that there were no direction by the

Supreme Court in the petitioner’s case to renew the passport for 10 years and

hence the decision in Narendra K.Ambwani2 would not apply to him.

10. The petitioner challenged orders dated 08.04.2021 and 24.08.2021 by

way of a Writ Petition in W.P.No.332 of 2022 seeking a direction to the

respondent to re-issue the passport with additional pages with 10 year validity.

That Writ Petition was disposed on 28.02.2022 holding the action of the

respondents in restricting the period of validity of the passport as

1 W.P.No.361 of 2014, decided on 13.03.2014

2 (Supra) Foot Note 1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

unsustainable, as there was no reasoning in those communications and as they

were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent was

directed to re-issue passport either with the existing period of validity or for 10

years as per Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 (in short 'Rules'), in

accordance with law, prior to the date stipulated in that order.

11. The respondent chose the first option above and renewed the

passport till 05.03.2024 as per the original date of validity, acceding to the

position that the curtailment of validity at the first instance (for a period of one

year till 04.03.2022) was incorrect. Order dated 28.02.2022 has become final.

12. On the anvil of the passport expiring, the petitioner had submitted a

representation on 22.12.2023 putting the respondent to notice that he would be

seeking renewal of passport and requesting that the same be renewed for 10

years. By way of reply dated 01.01.2024, the petitioner was asked to submit an

online application for re-issue of passport with supporting documents.

13. The respondent also made it clear that he was not in a position to

commit on the period of validity of the passport, as no application has been

received at that juncture. The petitioner has made an application on 02.01.2024

and has now filed this Writ Petition seeking a positive direction from this

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

Court, that the respondent issue a fresh passport with full validity of 10 years as

per the Rules.

14. The apprehension of the petitioner is premised upon the action of the

respondent earlier in curtailing the passport validity period which was found to

be incorrect by the Court. Further, though this Court had originally granted

two options, one of extending the passport for the original period of validity

and secondly for 10 years, as per Rule 12 of the Rules, the respondent had

availed only the first option, thus, making it clear that his intention, according

to the petitioner, was to restrict his fundamental right at all costs.

15. Mr.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.N.R.R.Arun

Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment in the case

of Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India3, where the right to travel had been held

to be an inherent part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Mr.Wilson

then takes me through the scheme of the Act and Rules. Rule 12 states that an

ordinary passport containing 36 or 60 pages may be issued for persons other

than children below the age of 15 years, which shall be in force for a period of

10 years from the date of its issue.

3 (1978) 1 SCC 248

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

16. In the present case, the petitioner holds an ordinary passport and the

application is only for such renewal. The specific argument is that the statutory

provisions governing the issuance of a fresh passport and the issuance of a

passport for renewal are different and distinct. According to the petitioner, the

issue of a fresh passport is governed by Section 5 of the Act, whereas the re-

issue/renewal of passport is governed by Section 9.

17. For this purpose, my attention is drawn to the phrase ‘issued or

renewed’ contained in Section 9 which, according to the petitioner, establishes

that the act of issuance of a fresh passport and the act of issuance of a passport

for renewal are different and are to be treated differently.

18. The petitioner also draws attention to the passport Forms pointing

out that there was a specific form in Form EA(P)-2 which is for ‘Application

form for Miscellaneous Services on Indian Passport for (use in India) (a)

Renewal (b) Additional Visa Sheet (c) Additional Booklet (d) Change of

Address (e) PCC (f) Additional Endorsement (g) Chief inclusion/Deletion (h)

Any other Service (specify).

19. He specifically points out the distinction between Form EA(P) – 1

which is for 'New/Re-issue/Replacement of Lost/Damaged Passport’ and Form

EA(P) – 2 stating that the very fact that there are two forms, one for new/re-issue

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

and the second for renewal of passport, would make it amply clear that the

governing parameters for both are different.

20. Moreover, in Form EA(P) – 1 for new/re-issue of passport, column 17

requires the applicant to set out various details in regard to the criminal

proceedings pending in his case, whereas in Form EA(P) – 2, column 5 simply

asks whether there are criminal proceedings pending against the applicant without

calling for any details thereof.

21. Thus the argument is that, in the cases of renewal, the rigour is far less

than what is contemplated in the case of new/re-issue of passports. The embargo

laid by virtue of Section 6 and GSR 570(E) issued by the Ministry of External

Affairs on 25.08.1993 (in short ‘Notification’) do not apply in the cases of

renewal of passports.

22. The request of the petitioner to travel has found favour with the

Courts thus far. In fact, the Special Judge, (PC Act), CBI-09, New Delhi while

disposing four applications filed seeking permission to travel to Riyadh,

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during the period 25.12.2023 to 28.12.2023, had

noted at paragraph 18 that the request of the petitioner had been accepted on

numerous occasions, that he had not abused the concession or liberty granted

by the Court and that the petitioner had not breached any of the conditions

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

imposed upon him. Thus, there is no justification for the curtailment of period

of passport, particularly when the law did not permit the same.

23. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Narendra K.Ambwani4,

Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu V. Central Bureau of Investigation5, Ramesh

S. Taurani V. The State of Maharashtra and another6, Abbas Hatimabhai

Kagalwala V. State of Maharashtra and another7, Jinal D/o Nishith Dalal V.

The State of Maharashtra and another8 Bharat Jayvant Parekh V. Regional

Passport Officer and others9, Rajendra Kumar Saraf V. Union of India and

others10, Ganni Bhaskara Rao V. The Union of India and others11, Hardik Shah

V. Union of India and others12, Sannith Reddy Mandhadi V. The Union of India

and another13, Paruchuri Ashok Babu V. Union of India14 and Ashok Khanna

V. Central Bureau of Investigation15 confirmed by the Supreme Court in

SLP16.

4 Supra Foot Note 1

5 2021 SCC Online SC 3549

6 2016 SCC Online Bom 9026

7 2022 SCC Online Bom 1992
8 W.P.No.174 of 2021 dated 03.02.2021
9 2021 SCC Online Bom 6732
10 2022 SCC Online Bom 8520
11 AIR2022AP108
12 AIR 2022MP57
13 W.P.No.2422 of 2024 dated 26.02.2024
14 2023 SCC Online AP 1820
15 2019 SCC Online Del 11080
16 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.6142 of 2022 dated 02.05.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

24. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted

by Dr.G.Babu, learned Senior Panel Counsel would argue that the scheme of

the Act, insofar as it relates to fresh/re-issue and renewals, is one and the same

and that there is no distinction in this regard. The provisions of Section 5 form

a complete code and deal with ‘Applications for passports, travel documents,

etc., and orders thereon’ and this admits of all applications including

applications for renewal of passport. Section 9 which has been relied on by the

petitioner only deals with the form to be filed for either type of passport and

applicable conditions.
25. He states that Form EA(P)-2 has been deleted with effect from

01.11.1985 and provides an extract of the Passport Rules containing a foot

note, to the effect ‘Omitted by G.S.R.860(E), dated 1.11.1985 with effect from

the same date’.

26. Thus, Section 6, which empowers an authority to refuse passports or

travel documents applies in all situations including for renewal of passports.

Section 6(2)(f) states that the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport

or travel document for visiting a foreign Country if proceedings in respect of an

offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a

criminal Court in India.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

27. The counter filed sets out the details of six criminal cases pending

against the petitioner and hence Section 6(2)(f) operates as a bar, straight away,

disentitling the petitioner to the issue/re-issue of the passport. The only relief

available is under the Notification which requires an order of Court in order to

exempt an applicant from the rigour of Section 6.

28. The respondent relies upon the decisions in Vijay Madanlal

Choudhary & ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.17, Nataraj Kumar V. The Regional

Passport Officer, Chennai.18, Karti P. Chidambaram V. The Regional Passport

Officer, Chennai.19, Prashant Bhushan V. Union of India & anr.20, Santhosh

Beejadi Srinivasa V. Union of India and ors.21and Kadar Valli Shaik V. The

Union of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi

& 3 ors and batch.22

29. I have heard learned counsel and have studied the matter carefully.

The judgment in re. Satwant Singh V. Assistant Passport Officer23 paved the

way for the enactment of the Passport Act, 1967 (in short ‘Act’) regulating the

17 Supreme court order in I.A.No.15521/2021 in T.C.(CRL).No.04/2018

18 High Court of Madras in W.P.No.24427 of 2009 dated 28.04.2010
19 High Court of Madras in W.P.No.332 of 2022 dated 28.02.2022
20 High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)No.1524 of 2015 dated 07.01.2016
21 High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.24269 of 2023 dated 04.12.2023
22 In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.1392 of 2023 & batch dated 07.03.2023

23 (1967) 3 SCR 525

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

conditions for grant and rejection of passport and setting out the parameters for

such issuance.

30. Section 5 of the Act provides for issuance of passports and sub-

section (2) sets out the procedure to be followed by the authority for such

issuance. The authority has the discretion to issue a passport with or without

endorsement or refuse to issue the passport or travel document, and in the

latter, reasons are to be recorded by the authority.

31. Section 6 sets out the grounds on which the passport or travel

document may be rejected. The grounds for refusal set out under Section

6(1)(a) to (d) and are not attracted in this case. In fact, the respondent does

express any intention to refuse the passport per se, but only limit the period of

its validity.

32. The language of the provision is very clear, that the very pendency of

proceedings before a criminal Court in India would be sufficient ground to

refuse issuance of a passport or travel document.

33. Section 6(2) is finite and sets out 9 specific grounds for refusal to

issue a passport or travel document. In the present case, the ground invoked as

against the petitioner is that there are proceedings in respect of offences alleged

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

to have been committed by the applicant, that are pending before a criminal

Court in India.

34. The first issue that thus arises is as to whether Section 6 applies only

in the case of issuance of new passports or whether it can be invoked in cases

of re-issue/renewal of passport also.

35. In this context, Mr.Sundaresan would submit that Section 5 applies

to all situations of passport issuance, including new and renewal, whereas,

Mr.Wilson would argue that Section 5 applies only to cases of new issuance

and that re-issue/renewal would be governed by Section 9 of the Act.

36. Section 9 is entitled ‘Conditions and forms of passports and travel

documents’ and sets out the conditions subject to and the form in which a

passport or travel document shall be ‘issued or renewed’ as prescribed. The

first proviso to Section 9 says that different conditions and forms may be

prescribed for different classes of passports or travel documents or different

categories inter se.

37. The second proviso states that in addition to the prescribed

conditions, the passport authority may, with the previous approval of the

Central Government impose additional conditions as well, in specific cases.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

The categories of passports have been adumbrated in Section 4, being ordinary

passport, official passport and diplomatic passport.

38. In my understanding, Section 9 only clarifies that each category of

passport as set out under Section 4 is a distinct type and shall carry the form

and conditions as prescribed for that category of passport. It further clarifies

under the second proviso that the conditions that may be imposed for each

category of passport holder may vary and that additional conditions may also

be imposed with the sanction of the Central Government.

39. Section 9 is thus only an enabling provision to clarify the form, and

enable the imposition of conditions, and not a substantive provision dealing

with passport renewals. The mere use of the phrase ‘issued or renewed’ in

Section 9 would not alter this position or convert it to a substantive provision

dealing with a distinct class of passports.

40. Section 5, on the other hand, is a comprehensive provision which

deals with ‘Applications for passports, travel documents, etc. and orders

thereon’. There is no distinction made in Section 5 between a passport issued

for the first time and one that is issued on renewal. The procedure set out

under Section 5(2) is the same both in cases of a new as well as renewal

passport.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

41. In fact, barring Section 5, there is no other substantive provision

providing for the issuance of passports and thus my conclusion on this issue is

that Section 5 is a comprehensive provision dealing with both issuance of new

as well as renewal passports. The limited purpose of Section 9 is to draw

attention to the differences in the Forms and the conditions attached to the

passports.

42. Section 6 reads thus:

6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc.

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport
authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any
foreign country under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and no
other ground, namely: -
(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such
country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of
India:
(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may,
or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may,
or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or
any other country
(d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the
presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public
interest.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport
authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for
visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no
other ground, namely: -
(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India.,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside

India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of
India.,
(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is
likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or
is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any
foreign country;
(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of
five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been
convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral
turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not
less than two years;
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have
been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal
court in India;
(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a
warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court
under any law for the time being in force or that an order
prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been
made by any such court;
(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not
reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such
repatriation;
(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue
of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the
public interest.

43. The ground for refusal under Section 6(2)(f) thus stands attracted in

this case, and what comes to the aid of an applicant who attracts this ground of

refusal is Notification in GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, extracted below:

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 25th August, 1993

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

"G.S.R. 570(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a)

of Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 (15 of 1967) and in
supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the
Ministry of External Affairs No.G.S.R.298(E), dated the 14th April
1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is
necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India
against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have
been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India
and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to
depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f)
of sub- section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the
following conditions, namely:-
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued--

i. for the period specified in order of the court referred to

above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport
has to be issued; or

ii. if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the
travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be
issued for a period one year;

iii. if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period

less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of
the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year; or

iv. if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period

exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the
passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of
travel abroad specified in the order.

(b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (ii) and (a) (iii) above can be
further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has
not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and
provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not
cancelled or modified;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

(c) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further

renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further
period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel
abroad;

(d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the

passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court
concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in
force of the passport so issued.

(No.VI/401/37/79)

L.K.PONAPPA, Jt. Secy.(CPV)

44. The above Notification has been issued in public interest and

provides remedy/relief from the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) in certain specified

conditions as enumerated under clauses (a) to (d). Thus, a passport may be

issued despite the bar under Section 6(2)(f) upon permission being obtained

from the criminal Court for the purposes specified by the Court or, if no period

has been specified, for a period of one year.

45. In the event the Court has granted permission to travel abroad for a

period less than one year but has not specifically spoken about passport

validity, the passport has to be issued for one year or if the permission to travel

exceeds one year, the passport shall be issued for the actual period of travel

permitted.

46. Clauses (b) and (c) enable renewal of passport for which permission

has been obtained by the Court for one year at a time in certain specified

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

conditions. Clause (d) requires that the applicant furnish an undertaking that he

will appear before the Court at any time during the continuance of the passport

issued. The legal position is thus that the Passport Act imposes an absolute bar

for the issuance of a passport where the applicant faces criminal trial. Some

relief is provided under the Notification upon satisfaction of the conditions set

out therein.

47. Now I come to the cases cited at the bar. The oft quoted judgment in

matters of issuance of passport is Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu24. In that

case, the applicant was convicted for various offences under the Indian Penal

Code read with Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and his appeal was

dismissed by the High Court. The sentence was reduced by the High Court to

one year. He challenged the judgment of the High Court by way of Special

Leave and leave was granted by the Supreme Court.

48. Pending appeal, the applicant moved an application to the Central

Bureau of Investigation for no objection for renewal of his passport. The

application was not processed and the judgment of the Supreme Court records

that the non-processing was on account of the bar under Section 6(2)(f) of the

Act.

24 Supra Foot Note 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

49. The Court considered Section 6(2)(f), but found that the bar under

that Section related only to a circumstance where the applicant was facing trial.

In that case, while the conviction of the appellant continued till the disposal of

the Criminal Appeal, the sentence was only for one year. Thus the Court held

that the renewal of the passport could not be rejected on the ground of

pendency of the criminal appeal and directed the authorities to renew the same.

50. Though this judgment has been cited by the petitioner, it would have

no application in this case as the criminal cases which this Writ Petitioner is

defending are pending at various stages. The parties have cited two sets of

cases leading to diametrically opposing conclusions on the legal point under

consideration. In Narendra K.Ambwani25, a Division Bench of the Bombay

High Court considered a prayer for mandamus for extension of validity of

passport by 9 years/19 years. The challenge was to a passport that had been

issued only for a period of one year.

51. The Court makes reference to Rule 12 which states that an ordinary

passport has to be issued either for a period of 10 or 20 years and thus

concluded that the Passport Officer did not have the discretion to renew the

same for any other period than as stipulated under the Rules. In concluding so,

25 Supra Foot Note 1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

they rely on an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Anil

Vasantrai Upadhyay, Company Secretary of M/s.Johnson & Johnson Ltd.26.

52. The decisions in Jinal D/o Nishith Dalal27, Bharat Jayvant Parekh28,

Rajendra Kumar Saraf29 and Roshan Lawrence Menezes V. Union of India and

others30 have followed the decision in the case of Narendra K.Ambwani31.

53. In Paruchuri Ashok Babu32 the challenge was to restriction of the

term of passport to one year and a direction that the passport be issued for 10

years. Relying on Section 7 of the Act which required that any restriction of

passport term must be supported by reasons, the Court found that there were no

reasons as to why the passport had been restricted to a shorter period, and

directed the authorities to re-consider the issuance of the passport, in

accordance with law.

54. In Sannith Reddy Mandhadi33 and Hardik Shah34, the decision in

Narendra K.Ambwani35 and Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu36 have been

26 Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2520 of 2006 dated 13.11.2006

27 Supra Foot Note 8
28 Supra Foot Note 9
29 Supra Foot Note 10
30 Writ Petition (L) No.699 of 2020)
31 Supra Foot Note 1
32 Supra Foot Note 14
33 Supra Foot Note 13
34 Supra Foot Note 12
35 Supra Foot Note 1
36 Supra Foot Note 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

followed. In Abbas Hatimabhai Kagalwala37, there had been an application for

renewal of passport which had been rejected on the ground that the petitioner

must obtain permission from the Court where the criminal case was pending.
55. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (headed by the

present Chief Justice of the Madras High Court) held that no such permission

was required for renewal of passport. However, permission from the criminal

Court would be required if the applicant intended to travel abroad. Similar

orders have been passed by the Courts in Madras jurisdiction also and those

orders have attained finality.

56. In the case of Ashok Khanna38, a distinction has been made between

issuance of a new passport and renewal of passport. There is an observation at

page 21 of the SCC Online report that, as there is a separate provision for

renewal of the passport, Section 6 is not applicable in such cases. The Bench

relies on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma V. The

Regional Passport Officer39.

57. An appeal was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation

challenging the aforesaid order before the Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal)

Diary No.6142 of 2022. Vide order dated 02.05.2022, the Supreme Court has

37 Supra Foot Note 7

38 Supra Foot Note 15
39 (2019) 256 DLT 437

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

expressed its disinclination to entertain the SLP and has disposed the same,

leaving the question of law open. They make it expressly clear that the order of

the High Court in Ashok Khanna will be restricted to the facts and

circumstances of that case only, qua the Central Bureau of Investigation.

58. Similar is the decision in Ganni Bhaskara Rao40, where the Andhra

Pradesh High Court held that Section 6 would apply only to issuance of a fresh

passport and not to cases of renewal. In Ramesh S. Taurani41, the Court,

considering the past record of that applicant, found it appropriate to deal with

the request for travel on merits, and allowed the same, directing renewal of the

passport for 10 years.

59. The respondent for his part, relies first on a decision of this Court in

Nataraj Kumar42. In that case too, the challenge was to restriction of validity

of the passport to one year. The Court considered Sections 6, 7 and 10 of the

Act, Rule 12 of the Rules and the Passport Manual, 2001.

60. The conclusion was that passport may be given to an accused only

for a limited period and that too with an undertaking that the holder of the

passport shall appear before the Court at any time during the continuance of the

40 Supra Foot Note 11

41 Supra Foot Note 6
42 Supra Foot Note 18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

passport. The Court opined that this position would continue till such time the

applicant was acquitted.

61. In Santhosh Beejadi Srinivasa43, the Karnataka High Court, after

considering several decisions by the coordinate Benches of that Court

concluded that both issuance and re-issuance would be subject to the rigour of

Section 6(2)(f) of the Act. On the facts of that case and having regard to the

charges as against the applicant there, the prayer for issuance of a passport with

validity of 10 years was rejected and the applicant was given liberty to

approach the criminal Court for issuance of a short validity passport. The Court

made it clear that the criminal Court would consider the reasons put forth for

travel on their merit, and shall not reject the application for short validity

passport merely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case.

62. In Kadar Valli Shaik44 the Andhra Pradesh High Court also

concluded that Section 5 includes cases of issuance as well as renewal of

passport and as a consequence, Section 6 and the grounds for rejection

thereunder, would apply in both circumstances.

63. The provisions of Section 6(2)(f) were itself the subject matter of

challenge in Prashant Bhushan45 and have been upheld. In that judgment, the

43 Supra Foot Note 21

44 Supra Foot Note 22
45 Supra Foot Note 20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

petitioner had moved the appropriate authority for re-issue of passport, since

the leaves in the passport booklet had been exhausted. While re-issuing the

passport, the validity had been curtailed to one year only. By referring to the

Notification, the authority had stated that the request of the applicant for re-

issue with full validity could not be acceded to until and unless the Court

issued an order to that effect.

64. The prayer was originally for a declaration that the Notification was

unconstitutional and void and was subsequently amended by including a prayer

to quash Section 6(2)(f) on the ground that it was violative of Article 21 read

with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

65. The Division Bench noticed that the curtailment under Section

6(2)(f) was not absolute but has to be read with Section 22 which empowered

the Executive to grant exemption to any person or class of persons. It is in

exercise of power under Section 22 that the Central Government has carved out

certain exceptions. The Notification confers powers of exemption of an

applicant from the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act upon satisfaction of

some conditions.

66. The exercise of power in this regard is itself not final but subject to

remedies provided under the law. In fact, it is only the Notification which

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

provides some respite for an applicant who would otherwise be subject to the

full rigour of Section 6(2)(f). The basic premise on which Section 6(2)(f)

operates is that allowing a person with criminal charges pending against him to

travel abroad without any check would be against the interests of the State.

67. On a conjoint reading of Section 6(2)(f) with the Notification, the

Division Bench in Prashant Bhushan’s46 case held that the power under

Section 6(2)(f) was not unfettered but was tempered with the availability of the

power under Section 22 to provide respite by exempting certain classes of

applications.
68. The reliance of the petitioner on the judgment in the case of Maneka

Gandhi47 would be of no avail in the present case. In that case, the challenge

was to the impounding of the passport without any opportunity having been

granted to that applicant, prior to such impounding. It was in that context that

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such impounding was contrary to the

principles of natural justice, laying down the proposition that the right to travel

was an inherent part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

46 Supra Foot Note 20

47 Supra Foot Note 3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
27
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

69. In the present case, it has never been the stand of the respondent that

the passport is to be impounded or that it was not under consideration for

renewal. In fact, the respondent never indicates any intention to reject the

application for renewal but only maintains that the tenure must be curtailed to

one year as against 10 years. Thus, the judgment in re. Maneka Gandhi does

not advance the case of the petitioner as the right of this petitioner to travel is

not per se, under threat.

70. I have carefully studied the two lines of cases that have been

presented for my appreciation. I am convinced that Section 5 is a substantive

provision that deals with all cases of passport issuance, both new as well as

renewal. From May, 2010, there is no distinction between cases of re- issue

and renewal, as both involve issuance of a new passport booklet. This factual

position reveals itself from the Passport Manual 202048, circulated by the

respondents.
71. This procedural clarification amplifies, and is in line with the legal

position that there is only one substantive provision under the Act dealing with

issuance of Passports and that is Section 5. The reference to ‘issued or

renewed’ in Section 9 is incidental, as that provision deals only with the forms

48 Seventh Edition (updated upto 31st May 2020) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External
Affairs New Delhi – restricted copy – presented for appreciation of the Court during the hearing and returned
to the respondent when this order is pronounced).

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

of passports and travel documents and the conditions applicable to the same.

There is no indication whatsoever in that provision, to the effect that it sets out

and governs a separate procedure for renewal/re-issue of passports.

72. On the contrary, Section 5 deals with the minute procedure to be

followed in cases of issuance of passports in general and thus encompasses

within its ambit all procedures for such issuance, including both new passports

and renewals. Thus, the renewal of passport as sought for by the petitioner

would be governed by section 5 and as a consequence, the grounds for refusal

under section 6 are also attracted. I find support in this regard from the

judgments of Karnataka High Court in the case of Santhosh Beejadi Srinivasa49

and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kadar Valli Shaik50.
73. That apart, the difference in language between Form EA(P) -1

relating to fresh passport applications and EA(P)-2 renewal passport

applications is also unavailable to the petitioner now, in view of the omission

of Form EA(P)-2 dealing with applications for renewal/re-issue vide GSR

860(E) dated 01.11.1985, with effect from the same date.

74. On and with effect from the aforesaid date, there has been a

standardization of the passport application form and EA(P)–1 has been adopted

49 Supra Foot Note 21

50 Supra Foot Note 22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

as the application form for all passports, whether new or renewal. Thus, serial

number 17 of Form EA(P)-1 requiring minute details of criminal cases

instituted as against the applicant and such pendency are required to be

furnished in cases of renewals as well.

75. My conclusion is thus, that, Section 5 applies to both new as well as

renewal of passport, and the grounds for refusal set out under Section 6(2)

would apply equally to both situations, issuance of new as well as renewal

passports. There is thus no merit in the submission of the petitioner that the

grounds for refusal set out under Section 6(2) are unavailable in the case of

passport renewals. This issue is answered in favour of the respondent.

76. I now advert to the curtailment of period of validity in the present

case. Section 7 of the Act provides for duration of passports and travel

documents and states that a passport or travel document shall, unless revoked

earlier, continue in force for such period as may be prescribed. It also provides

for different periods to be prescribed for different classes of passports or travel

documents. This provision then, takes us to Rule 12 under which an ordinary

passport containing 36 pages shall be in force for a period of 10 years from the

date of its issue.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
30
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

77. Section 7 states that a passport or travel document may be issued for

a shorter period than the prescribed period if (a) such request is made by the

applicant; or (b) if the passport authority, for reasons to be communicated in

writing to the applicant, considers in any case that the passport or travel

document should be issued for a shorter period.

78. Section 8 deals with extension of period of passport and states that

where a passport has been issued for a period shorter than that prescribed under

section 7, then, such shorter period shall be applicable for all extensions unless

the passport authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, otherwise

determines.

79. In other words, if the petitioner’s passport were to be curtailed for a

period of one year, then all extensions would only be for a period of one year,

unless the authority concerned passes an order assigning reasons as to why the

extension was made for a period other than one year. This reiterates the

position that the curtailment must itself be made only for reasons to be set out

in writing.

80. Section 10 which deals with variation, impounding and revocation of

passports and travel documents states that a Passport Authority having regard

to the provisions of Section 6(1) or any Notification under Section 19 which

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
31
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

deals with passports and travel documents to be invalid for travel to certain

countries, may vary or cancel the endorsement on a passport or travel

document, or may vary or cancel the conditions subject to which a passport or

travel document has been issued, with the previous approval of the Central

Government and for that purpose, may impound the passport.

81. Section 10(2) states that the conditions on a passport or travel

document may be varied on the application of a passport holder with the

previous approval of the Central Government. Section 10(3) vests wide power

in a passport officer to impound or cause to be impounded a passport or travel

document if the authority was satisfied that the holder of the passport or travel

document is in wrongful possession thereof or if the passport or travel

document was obtained by suppression of material information or wrongful

information provided by the holder, if the impounding is necessary in the

interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, its security, friendly relations to

a foreign country, or in public interest, if the passport holder has been

convicted for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to two years

imprisonment or more in respect thereof, if proceedings in respect of the

offence alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport or travel

document was pending before the criminal Court in India, if any of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
32
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

conditions of the passport or travel document has been contravened, if a

passport holder has failed to comply with a notice requiring him to deliver the

same to the authority or if there is a pending warrant against a passport holder

issued by a Court which prohibits the person from departure from India.

82. Section 10-A provides for suspension of passports or travel

documents in certain cases and states that without prejudice to the general

provisions for impounding of passport, the Central Government or the

designated officer may, if satisfied, suspend a passport or travel document for a

period not exceeding four weeks.

83. Thus, the Scheme of the Act contains a carefully crafted in-built code

to protect against the possible misuse of passport. The grounds for non-issue

are set out under Section 6(2) and the measures to protect against possible

misuse are set out under Sections 7, 8 and 10.

84. In this case, we are concerned with curtailment of period of passport

which is permissible in terms of Section 7 upon reasons to be communicated in

writing to the applicant. A query was put by the Court as to whether the Writ

Petition was pre-mature as no order had been passed on the application of the

petitioner seeking extension for the full period of ten years.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
33
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

85. Mr.Sundaresan orally, as well as the counter in writing, confirm the

apprehensions of the petitioner to the effect that though the passport was intended

to be issued, it would have contained only a shorter validity period of one year.

The counter, at paragraph 12, confirms this position in the following terms:

“Furthermore, only one year Short Validity Passport may be

issued to the applicant as per clause a(ii) of GSR 570(E) unless
the court order specifies a period for which the passport has to be
issued, in which case clause a(i) of GSR 570(E) will be
applicable.”
86. There is thus no purpose to be served in directing the respondent to

dispose the petitioner’s application, as, the result of such a direction is a

foregone conclusion. Section 7(b) permits the issuance of a short validity

passport only in the event reasons have been assigned for such issuance. The

counter does not set out any reasons at all for such curtailment, and there is no

elaboration of this aspect of the matter by the learned ASG orally either,

despite a specific query posed to him in this regard.

87. Though the pendency of the criminal cases is admitted, the petitioner

has approached the Courts several times in the interim seeking permission to

travel. Such permission is seen to have been granted and there is also a finding

in the order of the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) – 09 dated 19.12.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
34
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

to the effect that the petitioner has not breached any of the conditions imposed

by the Courts thus far.

88. Thus, and also for the reason that the proposal to limit the period of

passport is bereft of any reasoning, I see no impediment for the issuance of a

passport with regular validity of 10 years and direct the respondent to do so

forthwith. The passport, once received by the petitioner, shall immediately be

surrendered to the Court in whose possession it has been thus far.

89. This writ petition is disposed in terms of this order with no order as

to costs.

28.03.2024

Index : Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral citation:Yes
Sl

To

The Regional Passport Officer, Chennai

Regional Passport Office,
No.2 & 3, 4th Floor,
Old No.785, New No.158,
Rayala Towers,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
35
 W.P.No.1190 of 2024

DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

sl

WP.No.1190 of 2024

28.03.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
36