Reducing Validity of Passport for Under-Trial Without Cogent Reasons Violates Presumption of Innocence Until Proven...
Reducing Validity of Passport for Under-Trial Without Cogent Reasons Violates Presumption of Innocence Until Proven Guilty
1. Presumption of Innocence: Fundamental Legal Principle
The cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence. This principle means that a person accused of a crime (an under-trial) is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court.
This is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), which includes the right to a fair trial.
Any restriction or penalty imposed on an under-trial, including interference with personal freedoms such as passport validity, must be justified by strong, cogent reasons.
2. Passport as a Fundamental Right
While a passport itself is not a fundamental right, the right to travel abroad has been recognized as part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
The Supreme Court has held that the government cannot arbitrarily interfere with this right. The validity or cancellation of a passport must be justified by law and reasons that do not violate fundamental rights.
3. Reducing Passport Validity for Under-Trials: What Is the Issue?
Sometimes, government authorities reduce the validity period of a passport or refuse its issuance or renewal for individuals who are under trial.
If this reduction or restriction is done without proper reasons or merely based on the fact that the person is an under-trial, it is an arbitrary act.
Such arbitrary action conflicts with the presumption of innocence because an under-trial has not yet been convicted.
The reduction in passport validity affects the individual's right to travel, work, education, or seek medical treatment abroad.
4. Legal Principles Governing Passport Issuance and Validity
The Passports Act, 1967 governs the issuance, renewal, and cancellation of passports.
Section 10 of the Act allows for refusal or impounding of a passport on certain grounds like:
If the holder is wanted for a criminal case,
If it is necessary in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, etc.
However, mere pendency of a criminal case (i.e., being an under-trial) does not ipso facto justify restricting passport rights.
Authorities must provide specific, cogent reasons — for example, a risk of flight or tampering with evidence — to reduce validity or deny passport services.
5. Case Law on Reduction/Refusal of Passport Validity and Presumption of Innocence
(i) Sonia Rani v. Union of India, AIR 2021 SC 435
The Supreme Court held that refusal or restriction on passport issuance must be based on reasonable, valid grounds.
The Court emphasized that under-trials have the right to travel unless there is concrete evidence of flight risk or other serious concerns.
Merely being an under-trial is not sufficient to curtail the right to a passport.
(ii) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836
The Supreme Court declared the right to travel abroad as part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Restrictions on passports must meet the test of reasonableness and must not be arbitrary or excessive.
(iii) K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1
The Court ruled that an under-trial is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and liberty must not be curtailed except on grounds established by law.
This principle extends to all personal freedoms, including movement abroad.
(iv) Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224
The Court reiterated that fundamental rights cannot be curtailed without due process and for reasons that are not cogent or legitimate.
6. Summary of Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Presumption of Innocence | An under-trial is presumed innocent; restrictions require solid justification. |
| Right to Travel | Embedded in personal liberty; passport validity affects this right. |
| Arbitrary Reduction Prohibited | Validity cannot be reduced arbitrarily or solely due to criminal trial status. |
| Cogent Reasons Required | Only if there is a genuine risk (e.g., flight risk) or security concern can restrictions apply. |
| Legal Framework | Passports Act Section 10, read with constitutional protections under Article 21. |
7. Practical Implications
Authorities should not impose arbitrary restrictions or reduce passport validity without explaining the concrete reasons.
A blanket policy or automatic reduction due to under-trial status would violate the constitutional guarantee of fairness and justice.
Courts can intervene by issuing writs (such as Habeas Corpus or Certiorari) to protect the rights of under-trials whose passport rights are unjustly curtailed.
8. Conclusion
Reducing the validity of a passport for an under-trial without cogent, legitimate reasons undermines the fundamental legal principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It interferes with the constitutional right to personal liberty and travel, and such action is liable to be struck down by courts as arbitrary and unconstitutional.
RELATED Blog
0 comments