Failure to consider judicial orders permitting travel abroad vitiates passport impounding under the Passports Act.

The petitioner’s passport, issued on 12.08.2016, was impounded by Respondent No. 2 (Regional Passport Office) via an order dated 04.11.2022.

The action followed a complaint regarding FIR No. 5/2021 registered under Sections 34, 377, 506, 406, and 498A of the IPC, arising from matrimonial discord with his wife.

Although the Passport Authority invoked Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act due to pending criminal proceedings, a competent criminal court had previously cancelled the Look Out Circular (LOC) against the petitioner on 29.10.2022, noting that he had joined the investigation, was granted bail, and was permitted to travel abroad.

The High Court stayed the impounding order on 10.11.2022, observing that the Passport Authority failed to consider the criminal court’s findings.

1. Whether the Passport Authority’s order to impound the petitioner’s passport under Section 10(3)(e) was sustainable when the competent criminal court had already permitted the petitioner to travel abroad.

2. Whether the administrative action of impounding a passport must account for the fundamental right to travel and judicial orders permitting such travel during pending litigation.

Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, which empowers authorities to impound a passport if criminal proceedings are pending.

The constitutional principle established in Satwant Singh Sawheny v. D. Ramarathnam (AIR 1967 SC 1836) and Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597), which mandates that the freedom to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 and any deprivation must be supported by legislative authority and fair procedure.

The court found that the Passport Authority exercised its power under Section 10(3)(e) mechanically, without noticing or dealing with the criminal court’s order dated 29.10.2022.

The criminal court had specifically noted that the petitioner was cooperating, a chargesheet had been filed, and a prolonged trial should not suspend the accused's right to livelihood and travel.

The High Court emphasized that since the petitioner had been traveling abroad under interim court orders without any violation of directions, and the core of the dispute was matrimonial discord, the impounding order lacked sufficient justification.

The court noted that administrative authorities cannot ignore judicial findings that expressly permit the exercise of a fundamental right during the pendency of a trial.

The Court held that the petitioner is at liberty to apply for the renewal of his passport, which must be considered by the authorities in accordance with the law.

It further granted liberty to the petitioner’s wife to approach the concerned trial court should there be any non-cooperation by the petitioner in the underlying criminal proceedings.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.