ANI file photo
NEW DELHI: Holding that the Constitution itself is put at risk if the balance between power of the State and dignity of the individual is disturbed, Supreme Court held that govt cannot deny renewal of passport to an accused or convict when the court concerned has given no-objection to get it renewed with a condition that prior permission would be needed to go abroad.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and A G Masih said where criminal cases are pending then a “no objection certificate” or permission from criminal court may override an adverse police report for renewal of passport. It quashed order of passport authority rejecting renewal of passport to one Mahesh Kumar Agrawal who is convicted in one case in Delhi and being prosecuted by NIA court in Ranchi in coal mining case. He challenged his conviction in Delhi HC and his appeal is pending. He got bail in both cases and got no-objection from both DelhI HC and Ranchi court for renewal.Allowing his plea, the bench said, “Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. Freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State may, where statute so provides, regulate or restrain that freedom in interests of justice, security or public order but such restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law,” it said. It said the law permits court to allow renewal of passport while retaining complete control over each instance of foreign travel by insisting on its prior approval as had been done in the present case. “In our view, once criminal courts, with full knowledge of the pending proceedings, consciously allowed renewal subject to the condition that the appellant shall not travel abroad without their permission and, in case of NIA court, required redeposit of renewed passport, underlying concern of Section 6(2)(f) stood adequately addressed under judicial supervision,” it said. Section 6(2)(f) talks about denying passport when criminal case is pending.”In the present case, both criminal courts have adopted a different but equally legitimate method of control by allowing renewal while reserving to themselves the power to regulate each instance of foreign travel. That method satisfies the statutory concern of securing the accused’s presence…” it said.”Denial of renewal of a passport does not operate in a vacuum. This court has repeatedly held in a catena of judgements that right to travel abroad and right to hold a passport are facets of right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any restriction on that right must be fair, just and reasonable, and must bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose,” it said.
