The Delhi High Court held that holding a passport and travelling abroad is integral to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav quashed impounding orders, citing violation of natural justice principles.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the ability to possess a passport and travel internationally is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a ruling that set aside a central government decision to impound a real estate executive’s passport, the court stressed that any government action infringing upon this right must be reasonable and strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled in favor of the petitioner, nullifying the passport impounding orders issued by the relevant authorities and the subsequent rejection by the appellate body.
Factual Backgrounds:
The petitioner, Yogesh Raheja, the former Director of Raheja Developers, applied for passport renewal in October 2024. On January 17, 2025, authorities ordered his passport to be impounded, claiming he had not disclosed the pending FIR against him.
Mr. Raheja contested this decision with the appellate authority, but his appeal was rejected on March 25, 2025. He then sought judicial intervention from the Delhi High Court.
Issue:
Whether the failure to disclose a First Information Report (FIR) during the passport renewal process warranted the impounding of the passport, especially in the absence of the court acknowledging the matter?
Arguments of Parties:
Represented by Sandeep Kapur, Senior Partner at Karanjawala & Co., the petitioner argued that the registration of an FIR does not equate to the “pendency of criminal proceedings” as defined by the Ministry of External Affairs in its 2019 office memorandum. The counsel asserted that, for the issuance or renewal of a passport, proceedings should only be considered pending when a competent court has acknowledged the offense.
ALSO READ: Wife Can Apply for Passport Without Husband’s Permission or Signature: Madras High Court
The respondents, comprising the passport authorities, argued that the non-disclosure of the FIR provided a valid basis for the passport impoundment under current regulations.
Analysis of the Court and Order:
Upon evaluating the timeline, the court identified a notable inconsistency in the authorities’ rationale. The passport was impounded in January 2025 for “pending proceedings,” but the competent court only acknowledged the FIR in February 2025 one month after the impounding order was issued.
Justice Kaurav highlighted the constitutional significance of the document, asserting:
“The right to hold a passport and to travel abroad is an integral facet of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It follows that any State action impinging upon the right to hold a passport must satisfy the test of reasonableness and must be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.”
The court further noted that the justifications provided by the authorities did not survive legal examination, as there were no “pending” criminal proceedings at the time of the application or the subsequent impounding.
Determining that the authorities’ decision was unjustifiable, the court annulled the orders dated January 17, 2025, and March 25, 2025. This ruling reinstates the petitioner’s right to possess his passport, reinforcing the legal principle that administrative actions impacting personal liberty must be based on established legal facts rather than premature assumptions of wrongdoing.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE