Introduction:

In a pivotal decision, the Bombay High Court has clarified the criteria for passport renewal in the context of ongoing criminal investigations. In the case of  Kartik Vaman Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No. 14496 of 2024), the division bench of Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla ruled that the mere filing of an FIR or the existence of a case under investigation does not suffice as grounds to refuse passport renewal if no court has yet taken cognizance of the matter. This landmark ruling is set to influence the procedures followed by passport authorities in similar future cases.

Arguments of Both Sides:

In the writ petition, Kartik Vaman Bhatt, represented by his counsel, contended that the refusal to renew his passport based on an adverse police report was unjustified. Bhatt argued that the adverse report cited two issues: ongoing criminal proceedings and a pending application under the SARFAESI Act. However, Bhatt’s legal team, including Advocate S.S. Momi, highlighted that the FIR alone did not equate to “pending” criminal proceedings as per Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. They emphasized that for criminal proceedings to be considered “pending,” there must be a formal case registered in court with the court taking cognizance of the charges.

Additionally, Bhatt’s counsel argued that the SARFAESI Act application was a civil matter and thus irrelevant to the passport renewal decision. The counsel also pointed out that the criminal complaint against Bhatt had only been sent for police inquiry and was stayed by a High Court order, with the complainant having undertaken to withdraw the complaint. Therefore, Bhatt’s legal team maintained that the passport authorities had no valid grounds to deny his passport renewal.

Representatives from the Union of India and the Passport Authorities, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Mr. Rajesh Gaur, argued that the adverse police report, which cited both the ongoing criminal case and the SARFAESI Act application, was sufficient reason for refusing the passport renewal. They asserted that the existence of a criminal investigation and pending civil proceedings warranted a review of the renewal application under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, which allows for refusal if there are pending proceedings related to an offence alleged against the applicant.

The respondents also contended that the legal framework and the office memorandum dated October 10, 2019, which allows refusal based on an adverse police report, should be upheld. They maintained that these provisions are designed to ensure that individuals involved in ongoing criminal or civil disputes are not issued passports that could hinder legal proceedings.

Court’s Judgment:

The Bombay High Court’s judgment was a significant affirmation of the principles governing passport renewals. Justice BP Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla examined the legal requirements under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and the October 10, 2019, Office Memorandum. The Court determined that the mere existence of an FIR or an ongoing investigation does not constitute “pending” criminal proceedings that would justify the refusal of passport renewal.

The judges clarified that for criminal proceedings to be considered “pending,” a formal charge must be filed, and the court must have taken cognizance of the case. They found that since the criminal complaint against Bhatt was still at the stage of a police inquiry and had been stayed by the High Court, it did not meet the criteria for a “pending” proceeding. The Court also highlighted that the SARFAESI Act application was a civil matter and therefore did not impact the passport renewal process under the Passports Act.

The Court directed the Passport Authorities to process Bhatt’s passport renewal application and issue the passport within three weeks, provided that all other requirements for passport issuance were met. The judgment also set a compliance hearing for July 18, 2024, to ensure that the Passport Authorities adhered to the Court’s directive.