Balancing Individual Rights and Administrative Discretion: The Rajesh Gupta v. Union of India Case and the Rule of Law

Facts:-

The petitioner, an Indian national holding passport number K0166531 issued by respondent No.2, valid from November 20, 2012, to November 19, 2022, applied for renewal on December 20, 2021. Despite the timely application, he received no updates on the renewal status and was informed of delays due to pending police verification. To understand the delay, he filed an RTI application. The RTI response indicated the delay was due to the absence of a police verification report. On April 13, 2022, he was notified by the passport office that the police had submitted an adverse report against him, but the content of this report was not disclosed.

On April 18, 2022, the petitioner filed another RTI application. The Public Information Officer responded on May 13, 2022, sharing a communication dated April 21, 2022, which revealed that FIR No.3/2019 was registered against the petitioner, necessitating a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the court. The petitioner contended that he could not provide the NOC due to the absence of ongoing criminal proceedings against him in any court. Consequently, the respondent (Passport Authority) closed the case for renewing or reissuing the passport, notifying the petitioner via text message on June 2, 2022. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a directive to renew or reissue the passport before its expiration and a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated April 21, 2022, which informed him about the FIR and the NOC requirement.

Issue:-

The central issue in this matter is whether the act of registering a First Information Report (FIR) and initiating an investigation by law enforcement can be considered sufficient grounds to deny the issuance or renewal of a passport, in accordance with the provisions established by the Passport Act, 1967. [1]

Rule:-

The case hinges on the interpretation of the Passport Act, of 1967, specifically Section 6 and Section 10, which outline the conditions under which a passport can be refused, impounded, or revoked. The relevant provisions of the Passport Act are as follows:

• Section 6(2)[2]: This section lists the grounds on which the passport authority may refuse to issue or renew a passport. Clause (f) states that the passport can be refused if proceedings in respect of an offense alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.
• Section 10[3]: This section deals with the variation, impounding, and revocation of passports and travel documents. Clause (e) of Sub-Section (3) states that the passport authority may impound or revoke a passport if it is brought to their notice that proceedings in respect of an offense alleged to have been committed by the holder of the passport are pending before a criminal court in India.

Application:-

In the aforementioned case, the petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Pranav Kohli, advanced the argument that the mere registration of an FIR and the initiation of an investigation do not constitute pending criminal proceedings before a court. The petitioner’s position was that criminal proceedings are considered pending only when a final report is submitted to the court by the police or when a court takes cognizance of a criminal complaint. Consequently, the petitioner contended that, in light of the fact that only an FIR had been registered and no final report had been submitted to the court, there were no criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner.

Furthermore, Mr. Kohli argued that the Passport Act does not provide for the denial of passport issuance or renewal on the grounds of a pending investigation alone. He emphasized that the grounds for refusal are explicitly listed in Section 6 [4]of the Passport Act, and the respondents’ requirement for an NOC based on the FIR and ongoing investigation was not supported by the Act.

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Mr. Vishal Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, argued that the adverse police report and the registration of FIR No.3/2019 [5]against the petitioner justified the requirement for a NOC. The respondents maintained that the petitioner had declared in his passport application that he was not charged with any criminal proceedings, and the adverse report contradicted this declaration. Consequently, the passport office’s demand for an NOC was legitimate, and the case closure was justified due to the petitioner’s failure to provide the requisite NOC.

Analysis by Court:-

The court examined the provisions of the Passport Act and the interpretation of “pending criminal proceedings” in relation to the Act. It referred to several judgments, including the Supreme Court’s rulings in Satwant Singh Sawhney [6]v. D. Ramarathnam and Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India,[7] which established that the right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right can only be restricted by laws that authorize such restrictions. The court noted that Section 6(2) of the Passport Act explicitly states the grounds for the denial of passport issuance or renewal, and no other grounds can be considered. Clause (f) of Section 6(2) specifically states that the denial can be based on the pendency of criminal proceedings before a criminal court. The court emphasized that the mere registration of an FIR and the initiation of an investigation by the police do not constitute pending criminal proceedings before a court. The court further referred to the Madras High Court’s judgment in Venkatesh Kandasamy v. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs,[8] which held that criminal proceedings are deemed to be pending only when a court takes cognizance of the matter. Until such cognizance is taken, the registration of an FIR and ongoing investigation do not constitute pending criminal proceedings. The court also addressed the respondents’ reliance on circulars and office memos, which purportedly required the petitioner to obtain an NOC from the court. It clarified that such circulars and memos cannot supersede the statutory provisions of the Passport Act. The Act’s provisions take precedence, and the respondents’ actions must align with the statute’s requirements.

Judgment:-

The court ruled that the demand for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the petitioner by the respondents was not legally justifiable based solely on the registration of an FIR and ongoing investigation. The court determined that the respondents could not require an NOC from the petitioner in the absence of any pending criminal proceedings in a competent court. The court further stated that the adverse police report and FIR registration did not provide a valid reason for denying the renewal or re-issue of a passport under the Passport Act. In light of these findings, the court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to issue a passport to the petitioner in the re-issue category without requiring an NOC. However, the court granted the respondents the discretion to verify whether a final report in FIR No.3/2019 [9]had been submitted to the competent court before issuing the passport. If a final report had been presented, the respondents would then be entitled to demand an NOC from the court.

The court granted the petitioner’s request to obtain a passport without needing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the court if there are no ongoing criminal proceedings. The judgment emphasized the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution [10]and clarified that the mere registration of an FIR and ongoing investigation would not justify denying passport issuance or renewal.

Conclusion:-

The case of Rajesh Gupta vs Union Of India And Another [11]showcases the judiciary’s vital role in protecting constitutional rights, particularly the right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court overturned the arbitrary rejection of Mr. Gupta’s passport application, ruling it unjust and unsupported by the Passport Act, of 1967. It clarified that the mere existence of pending criminal cases without conviction is inadequate grounds for denying a passport. It emphasized that administrative authorities must make decisions within the legal framework, ensuring that they are lawful, reasonable, and evidence-based. The court also issued detailed guidelines to ensure that future administrative actions adhere to statutory and constitutional provisions, thereby reinforcing principles of natural justice, fairness, and the rule of law. This landmark judgment aims to prevent arbitrary administrative actions and safeguard individuals’ fundamental rights against unlawful restrictions.

Cases Referred:-

1. Rajesh Gupta v. Union of India (2022) under J&K High Court – https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/jkl-hc-passport-446076.pdf
2. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam – Mohapatra, S. (2014). Satwant Singh Sawhney V. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government (4).India | Asian Encyclopedia of Law. https://india.lawi.asia/satwant-singh-sawhney-v-d-ramarathnam-assistant-passport-officer-government-4/
3. Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978 SCC (2) 621]
4. Venkatesh Kandasamy v. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Chennai – https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609070ee4b01497111669f6

[1] https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609070ee4b01497111669f6

[2] Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967

[3] Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967

[4] Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967

[5] http://jkacb.in/link.php?sno=37#:~:text=Case%20FIR%20No.,Ltd.

[6] https://india.lawi.asia/satwant-singh-sawhney-v-d-ramarathnam-assistant-passport-officer-government-4/

[7] [1978 SCC (2) 621]

[8] https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609070ee4b01497111669f6

[9] http://jkacb.in/link.php?sno=37#:~:text=Case%20FIR%20No.,Ltd.

[10] Article 21, Constitution of India – https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-21-protection-of-life-and-personal-liberty/

[11] https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/jkl-hc-passport-446076.pdf