In a significant judgment that reaffirms the fundamental right to travel, the Telangana High Court, under the leadership of Justice Surepalli Nanda, ruled in favor of Ankam Balaiah, directing the authorities to renew his passport despite a pending criminal case against him. The decision, delivered on January 31, 2024, in Writ Petition No. 1807 of 2024, emphasizes the legal principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and cannot be arbitrarily denied their rights due to an ongoing trial.
The case arose when Ankam Balaiah applied online for the renewal of his passport on January 13, 2023. His application, however, was not considered by the Regional Passport Officer on the grounds that he was an accused in C.C.No.948 of 2022, a case pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad. The charges against him included Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 7 of the Seeds Act, and Rule 8(a) of the Seeds (Control) Order. These allegations, relating to fraud and violations in the agricultural seed sector, led the passport authorities to withhold renewal, citing the pending criminal proceedings as a justification.
Balaiah, through his counsel, argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case and was fully prepared to cooperate with the legal process. His legal team further contended that mere pendency of a criminal case could not serve as valid grounds for refusing passport renewal. They cited the Passports Act, 1967, which allows for denial or impounding of passports only under specific circumstances, such as conviction in the preceding five years for an offense involving moral turpitude, with a sentence of at least two years’ imprisonment. Since Balaiah had not been convicted but was only facing trial, his counsel argued that the rejection was legally untenable.
Justice Surepalli Nanda, in her ruling, relied on several landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India, particularly Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572), where the court held that passport renewal cannot be denied solely based on pending criminal proceedings unless there is a specific statutory restriction. The Supreme Court’s stance was that refusal of a passport should only be based on conviction, not mere accusations or ongoing cases.
The court also referenced Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi (2013 15 SCC 570), where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence extends to all fundamental rights, including the right to travel. It further cited the Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 1 SCC 248) case, a seminal judgment that established that no person can be deprived of their right to travel abroad unless done through a law that follows a just, fair, and reasonable procedure. In this case, the Supreme Court had ruled that even if the government imposes restrictions on travel, those restrictions must be fair and cannot be arbitrary.
Another crucial judgment referenced was Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (2019 SCC Online SC 2048), where the Supreme Court observed that the right to travel is an essential component of personal liberty, impacting not only an individual’s professional and economic opportunities but also personal relationships, family, and overall well-being. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India (2023 4 ALT 406 (AP)), had also held that even a person convicted of a crime, if their sentence is stayed or under appeal, cannot be denied a passport renewal outright.
Based on these precedents, the Telangana High Court ruled that the denial of Balaiah’s passport renewal was arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the legal position upheld by the highest courts in the country. The judgment emphasized that unless a person is convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude and sentenced to a minimum of two years, their right to travel abroad remains intact.
However, the court also took a balanced approach by imposing certain conditions to ensure that the petitioner remains accountable to the judicial process. Balaiah was directed to submit an undertaking and an affidavit before the trial court in Adilabad, stating that he would not leave India during the pendency of the case without prior court permission and that he would cooperate fully with the proceedings. Upon submission of this undertaking, the trial court was instructed to issue a certified copy of the same within two weeks, which Balaiah would then present to the Passport Authority. The Passport Authority, in turn, was directed to process and renew his passport within three weeks of receiving the necessary documents.
In a further safeguard, the court ordered that upon renewal, Balaiah must deposit the original passport with the trial court. However, he was granted the liberty to apply for permission to travel abroad, which the trial court would consider on a case-by-case basis.
This ruling is expected to have wider implications, particularly for individuals facing criminal proceedings who require passport renewals for professional, medical, or personal reasons. It reiterates that judicial discretion must be exercised in a fair manner and that blanket denials of fundamental rights based on pending cases are unconstitutional.
Legal experts have welcomed the judgment, stating that it reaffirms the core principles of justice—innocence until proven guilty and the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The ruling also reinforces the importance of procedural fairness, ensuring that individuals are not arbitrarily stripped of their rights merely due to accusations or delayed trials.
For Ankam Balaiah, this judgment offers relief and restores his ability to travel, but it also places a responsibility on him to abide by legal obligations and remain present for the trial. More broadly, the ruling serves as a crucial legal precedent protecting citizens from arbitrary government actions and upholding the integrity of India’s judicial system.
Kusha Mehta is a law student at Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with a background in economics. She has experience in legal research, writing, and analysis, with internships at NyayaSarthak and the International Institute of SDGs & Public Policy Research. Passionate about advocacy and policy, she has also completed certifications from Harvard University.
Nice explanation.