The present case deals with the complications during the renewal of passport due to the on account of pending legal proceedings. The facts of the instant case are such that, Sharath Chandrasekhar (Petitioner), a dual-qualified lawyer registered with the Bar Council of Karnataka and the New York State Bar was seeking the court’s intervention for the renewal of his passport, which was due to expire. The passport in question, was issued by the Regional Passport Office in Bengaluru and was valid until April 4, 2023. The Petitioner had applied for renewal six months before the expiry date, as per the standard procedure. During the police verification process, it was found that the Petitioner was involved in three legal proceedings; a matrimonial case initially filed in Bengaluru but transferred to Lucknow by the Supreme Court, a maintenance case filed by his wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and a case filed by his wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2012.
The court observed that the pending legal proceedings, particularly the matrimonial disputes, should not unduly prejudice the Petitioner’s right to have his passport renewed. The Court emphasized that the legal proceedings mentioned should not automatically serve as a bar to the renewal of the passport. The court referred to previous judgments stating that the right to travel abroad is a part of the fundamental right to personal liberty. Therefore, the Court held that any restriction on this right must be reasonable and proportionate to the purpose it seeks to achieve.
Directive for Discretion: The court directed the passport authorities to exercise their discretion judiciously while considering the Petitioner’s application for passport renewal. It instructed the authorities to take into account the nature of the legal proceedings, the Petitioner’s need to travel, and his track record of compliance with legal mandates.
The court concluded that the Petitioner’s involvement in legal proceedings, in itself, should not be the sole ground for denying the renewal of his passport. It mandated the passport authorities to consider the renewal application on its own merits and in accordance with the principles laid down by the court. The court’s observations and the subsequent directive reflect a balancing act between the state’s interest in regulating the issuance of passports and an individual’s right to freedom of movement. It stressed that while the state may have legitimate concerns regarding the flight risk of individuals involved in legal proceedings, these concerns must be balanced against the individual’s rights.