The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has recently ruled that merely registering a First Information Report (FIR) against a person is not sufficient grounds for authorities to impound their passport. This significant judgment reinforces the fundamental right to travel and clarifies the limitations on the government's power to restrict this right.

The ruling came in response to a petition filed by Sajad Ahmad Khan, a former IAS officer, who challenged the rejection of his application for the release of his passport. The Special Judge Anti-Corruption CBI Cases Jammu had previously denied Khan's request on September 11, 2021. Khan, who retired from service in 2018, sought the passport to undertake a religious pilgrimage.

Justice Sindhu Sharma, presiding over the case, emphasized that impounding a passport is a serious infringement on a citizen's fundamental rights, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects personal liberty. The court asserted that such restrictions must be authorized by law and based on sufficient cause, adhering to the principles of natural justice. It found that the order to impound Khan's passport, based on the recommendations of authorities due to the registration of an FIR and the subsequent investigation, was not a valid exercise of power under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act.

The court clarified that merely having an ongoing investigation does not grant authorities the power to impound a passport under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act. It explicitly stated that the registration of an FIR by an investigation agency is not a valid reason to refuse, renew, or impound a passport. According to the court, a criminal case is considered genuinely pending only when a charge sheet has been filed and the court has officially taken cognizance of the offense.

In light of these observations, the High Court set aside the previous order that had impounded Khan's passport. The court directed the Regional Passport Officer to either release Khan's passport or issue him a new one, provided all necessary formalities are completed. The bench also nullified the 2021 order by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI Cases, Jammu, which had refused to release the passport to Khan.

This ruling aligns with previous observations made by the High Court in similar cases. In November 2022, the court held that the mere registration of an FIR is not a sufficient ground to deny the issuance or re-issuance of a passport. The court reiterated that passports or travel documents can only be withheld if proceedings related to an alleged offense are pending before a criminal court in India.

The High Court's consistent stance underscores the importance of due process and the protection of individual liberties. It ensures that citizens are not unduly penalized based solely on the registration of an FIR, without a formal charge and judicial cognizance of the alleged offense. This judgment serves as a reminder that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty and can only be restricted through legally sound and just procedures.