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.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosHindu Lynching Sparks Outrage: Shashi Tharoor Warns On Mob Rule, Priyanka Blasts Modi Govt SilenceEx-PM Imran Khan And Bushra Bibi Jailed For 17 Years In Toshakhana Gift Jewellery Case’There Is Only One Modi’: Jaishankar Says Leaders Define Nations, Not Ministers Or IndividualsMore Complicated Than Ever: Jaishankar Flags US, China, Russia, Europe As India Faces Harder ChoicesPM Modi Says BJP Correcting Congress Mistakes As Assam Gets New Airport And Northeast PushKabul Chooses India For Medicines As Afghan Minister Admits Pakistan Ties Have Deteriorated BadlySonia Gandhi Criticises PM Modi Over VB-G RAM G Bill And MGNREGA Rollback’Maha Jungle Raj in Bengal, Mamata Shielding Infiltrators’: PM Modi Blasts TMC in Virtual RallyPiyush Goyal Says Congress Policies Suppressed Enterprise And Capped India’s Growth For Decades’Global Order Has Changed Forever, No Single Nation Can Dominate All Issues’: Says EAM Jaishankar123PhotostoriesTea Time Snack: How to make zero-sugar Banana Chocolate Oatmeal CookiesBharti Singh turned emotional as her water bag broke before delivery; shared, “Mujhe Bahot Darr Lag Raha Hai”8 Foods that can help manage blood sugar levels in Diabetes10 best destinations near Delhi/NCR to plan your last-minute New Year getawayFrom Sunil Grover to Rupali Ganguly: This is what your favorite TV actors did before getting limelightBlurred vision or eye strain? These signs mean you need an eye check-up12 food combinations that can slow down parents’ agingWinter Snack: How to make Dhokla in a pressure cooker8 Stoic life lessons from “Meditations” by Marcus AureliusNot just cold or cough: Doctor shares common triggers that can cause a sore throat123Hot PicksTom BradyEpstein files releasedTim SaunderGold rate todaySilver rate todayPublic Holidays DecemberBank Holidays DecemberTop TrendingJosh Allen Luxury Car CollectionRandi MahomesAuston MatthewsWho is Nicole LundersJeremy Doku and Shireen Doku Net WorthMatthew StaffordWalker Buehlers WifeSibley ScolesAssam Rajdani Express TragedyUS Strikes
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.
