Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, B. S. Bhanumathi, J., opined that since, the fact that the petitioner had applied for renewal of the visa stamping and the alloted date was not in dispute, the passport was very much required to the petitioner and his fundamental right to hold his passport could not be curtailed. The Court opined that if at all, there was any violation of notices issued to the petitioner, the remedy was open to the respondents under appropriate provisions of the law and as such, for the time being, no need for imposing any condition against the petitioner and directed to release the petitioner’s passport under due acknowledgement. Thus, the Court directed Respondents 3 and 4 to return the petitioner’s passport under due acknowledgement.
Background:
In an instant case, the petitioner was a Non-Resident Indian and on a personal visit to Hyderabad, Telangana, he came to meet his ailing mother. The petitioner was working as a software engineer and was also a member of mainstream opposition party in Andhra Pradesh and also, a vocal critic of administrative policies of the incumbent State Government. Through his social media platforms, the petitioner had criticised both the ruling party and incumbent State Government, so several cases were registered against him in Andhra Pradesh. On 22-12-2023, when the petitioner arrived at the Shamshabad International Airport, Hyderabad, he was detained by the immigration authorities, and they informed him that a Look Out Circular (‘LOC’) was pending against him and therefore, they need to handover the petitioner to Andhra Pradesh State Police in relation to the crimes registered against him.
On 23-12-23, a team of CB-CID Police Officers took the petitioner to the Regional Office in execution of the LOC, and on the same day, two notices were issued by Respondent 4 under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) and thereafter, he was released. Respondents 3 and 4 did not return the petitioner’s passport even after repeated persuasions and upon request, it was mentioned that the petitioner’s passport would be released in a day or two.. It was stated that the petitioner had applied for visa stamping for which the date was scheduled on 26-12-2023, and if the date was defaulted the petitioner would have to apply for another date and the slots for visa stamping for the next three months were unavailable. The petitioner contended that the passports had been sized in contravention of the existing laws and such exercise was unwarranted and in the violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner submitted that the without following due procedure under Sections 91 and 102 of the CrPC, the passport had been illegally seized and had not been returned so far. The petitioner also submitted that the cases were registered against him under Sections 153-A, 505(2), 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), but none of these provisions were attracted, since many times it was held that mere criticism of government policies would not amount to commission of any offence under these sections and that all his statements were in the public interest.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the seizure of the passport was not authorized and nor was the procedure under Sections 91 and 102 of the CrPC. Therefore, the continuation of holding the passport with Respondents 3 and 4 was not legally sustainable. The Court further opined that since, the fact that the petitioner had applied for renewal of the visa stamping and the alloted date was not in dispute, the passport was very much required to the petitioner and his fundamental right to hold his passport could not be curtailed.
The Court opined that if at all, there was any violation of notices issued to the petitioner, the remedy was open to the respondents under appropriate provisions of the law and as such, for the time being, no need for imposing any condition against the petitioner and accordinglt, directed Respondents 3 and 4 to release the petitioner’s passport under due acknowledgement.
[Yesasvi Bodduluri v. Regional Passport Office, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 4113, Order dated 26-12-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For petitioner: Umesh Chandra, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
