Passport impounding is unsustainable if the authority ignores judicial orders permitting travel and the accused’s cooperation.

The Petitioner challenged an order dated 04.11.2022 issued by the Regional Passport Office impounding his passport, which was valid until 11.08.2026

The impounding was triggered by a complaint regarding FIR No. 5/2021 filed under Sections 34, 377, 506, 406, and 498A of the IPC, arising from matrimonial discord with his wife

Following a Show Cause Notice, the Passport Authority invoked Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, citing pending criminal proceedings and the initial issuance of non-bailable warrants

However, a competent criminal court, in an order dated 29.10.2022, had already noted that the Petitioner joined the investigation, was granted bail, and had the Look Out Circular (LOC) against him cancelled

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 validly exercised its power to impound the Petitioner’s passport under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, while ignoring the orders of the competent criminal court

2. Whether the impounding order violated the Petitioner's fundamental right to travel and livelihood

The court primarily considered Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, which empowers authorities to impound a passport if criminal proceedings are pending against the holder

It relied on the constitutional principles established in Satwant Singh Sawheny v. D. Ramarathnam, which recognized the freedom to travel as a fundamental right under Article 21

Furthermore, it applied the doctrine from Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, affirming that a person cannot be deprived of their right to go abroad without the support of legislative authority and due process

The court found that the Passport Authority acted arbitrarily by failing to "notice or deal with" the specific orders passed by the criminal court

While Section 10(3)(e) allows for impounding during pending litigation, the court emphasized that the criminal court had explicitly permitted the Petitioner to travel, cancelled his LOC, and accepted his undertaking for cooperation

The court reasoned that since the Petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial court and the matter originated from matrimonial discord rather than a flight risk, the continued impounding was unjustified

It was noted that the Petitioner had traveled abroad multiple times under interim court orders without any violation of directions, thus demonstrating his compliance with the legal process

The court held that the Petitioner is at liberty to apply for the renewal of his passport, which must be considered in accordance with the law

Regarding the grievances of the Petitioner's wife, the court granted her liberty to approach the trial court if there is any non-cooperation in the criminal proceedings

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly