Gujarat High Court Clarifies Travel Authority Jurisdiction
The Gujarat High Court has made a significant ruling about who can decide if someone can travel abroad. Justice Aniruddha P Mayee stated clearly that passport authorities do not have the power to determine an individual's right to foreign travel. This authority belongs exclusively to trial courts.
Court Directs Passport Issuance in Specific Case
Justice Mayee was hearing a petition filed by Dhaval Sureshbhai Makwana. Makwana wanted the court to direct authorities to issue him a fresh passport. The court ordered the passport office to issue him a passport valid for ten years.
The January 5 order contained several important observations:
- Passport authorities cannot decide whether an accused person has the right to travel abroad
- This authority rests solely with the trial court
- The passport office's power is limited to issuing or renewing passports according to statutory rules and judicial orders
- Deciding whether an accused can leave India lies exclusively with the trial court
- Any application for passport issuance must be decided within four weeks
Legal Framework and Precedents
The court referred to existing legal provisions. A notification from August 25, 1993 provides exemptions and conditions for issuing passports to individuals facing criminal proceedings. This notification operates under Section 22 read with Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.
Justice Mayee also cited a Bombay High Court verdict from March 13, 2014. That judgment clarified that once a competent court permits passport issuance or renewal, passport authorities must follow the Passports Act and Rules. They cannot impose independent restrictions.
The Gujarat High Court noted that while the Bombay High Court guidelines are not binding, they have strong persuasive value. These guidelines applied directly to the current case.
Background of the Case
Dhaval Makwana approached the High Court seeking direction for a fresh passport. In 2022, a case had been registered against him under several sections of the Indian Penal Code:
- Section 323 for voluntarily causing hurt
- Section 504 for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
- Section 506(2) for criminal intimidation involving threats of death or grievous hurt
- Section 114 for being present when an abetted offence is committed
Following investigation, police filed a report concluding no offence was made out. A magistrate's court accepted this report on November 9, 2022. However, the order was later challenged, and a sessions court allowed a criminal revision. A connected petition by a co-accused remains pending before the High Court.
Arguments Presented in Court
Advocate Dharnesh R Patel represented the petitioner. He argued that merely having pending criminal proceedings should not prevent passport issuance. Patel submitted that Makwana wished to travel abroad and no judicial order restrained passport issuance.
Advocate Pradip D Bhate appeared for the state. He contended that individuals facing criminal proceedings must first obtain court permission before receiving a passport. Bhate noted that Makwana had not yet made a formal application to passport authorities.
Court's Clear Directions
The Gujarat High Court issued specific directions in its order:
- Passport authorities must issue a passport to Makwana for ten years according to the Passports Act and Rules
- If Makwana intends to travel abroad, he must apply to the appropriate trial court for permission
- The trial court would be free to impose any conditions it deems proper
- Passport authorities must decide any application within four weeks
This ruling clarifies the distinct roles of passport authorities and trial courts. Passport offices handle administrative functions of issuing documents. Trial courts exercise judicial authority over travel permissions for individuals involved in legal proceedings.
