In a landmark ruling that reiterates the constitutional protection of a person’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the Rajasthan High Court, led by Justice Arun Monga, held that reducing the validity of a passport for an under-trial without substantial reasons is an arbitrary action that undermines the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The judgment was delivered in the case of Abhayjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5870/2024], where the petitioner, Abhayjeet Singh, challenged the issuance of a passport with a reduced validity period of just one year, despite not being convicted of any crime.
Background of the Case:
The petitioner, Abhayjeet Singh, a 42-year-old farmer from Sriganganagar district, Rajasthan, has been embroiled in a matrimonial dispute with his wife since 2012. This dispute led to the registration of FIR No. 239/2012 under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Though the charges against Singh’s parents were quashed by the Additional Sessions Court, Srikaranpur, the charges against him were upheld. Singh, aggrieved by this decision, approached the Rajasthan High Court, where the matter remains pending with a stay on the charges framed against him.
Despite these ongoing proceedings, Singh sought the renewal of his passport to facilitate his agricultural business, which involves exporting ‘Kinnu’ produce to Saudi Arabia. However, his application was hindered by the state’s refusal to issue a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC), resulting in his passport being issued with only a one-year validity instead of the standard 10 years.
Legal Issues Involved:
The court was called upon to decide on several critical issues:
1. The Right to Travel and Presumption of Innocence: Whether reducing the validity of a passport for a person who has not been convicted, but merely faces charges, violates their fundamental rights.
2. Arbitrary Administrative Decisions: Whether such a reduction without cogent reasons is arbitrary and unfair.
3. Implications for Livelihood: Whether restricting passport validity adversely affects the petitioner’s right to earn a livelihood.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Arun Monga, while delivering the judgment, made several significant observations:
1. Presumption of Innocence is Paramount: The court stressed that “the restrictions imposed on his passport validity appear to pre-emptively punish the petitioner, undermining the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.” It held that denying a 10-year passport validity without valid reasons amounts to a violation of constitutional rights.
2. Right to Travel and Livelihood: The court reiterated that the right to travel is intrinsically linked to the right to earn a livelihood. Justice Monga noted, “A citizen is entitled to be issued a passport with a minimum validity of 10 years,” and that restricting Singh’s ability to travel abroad for business purposes without reasonable justification was an undue limitation on his rights.
3. No Evidence of Flight Risk: The court found no substantive evidence to suggest that Singh posed a flight risk or intended to abscond from legal proceedings. It noted his established business ties in India and the presence of his dependent parents as further assurances against any such risk.
4. Arbitrary Reduction Lacks Statutory Backing: The court observed that the Passport Act, 1967, and the Rules framed under it do not permit arbitrary reductions in the validity period of a passport for individuals who have not been convicted of any offence. The issuance of a one-year passport, in this case, was found to lack statutory support, contravening the provisions of the Passport Rules.
5. Impact on Administrative Efficiency: Justice Monga also criticized the administrative burden of requiring frequent renewals, stating, “Requiring the petitioner to frequently renew his passport every year not only places an undue burden on him but also on judicial and administrative resources, leading to unnecessary litigation and wastage of public funds and time.”
Court’s Directive:
As a result, the court directed the competent authority of the State of Rajasthan to issue the requisite “No Objection Certificate” within 30 days to enable Singh to apply for a passport with the standard 10-year validity. The court also made it clear that Singh must adhere to all bail conditions and comply with any additional directives imposed by the trial court when travelling abroad.
The petitioner, Abhayjeet Singh, was represented by Advocate Nishant Bora, while the State of Rajasthan was represented by Public Prosecutor H.S. Jodha.
