Arbitrary restrictions on the passport validity of an under-trial person were unconstitutional

The Rajasthan High Court recently ruled that arbitrary restrictions on the passport validity of an under-trial person were unconstitutional, recognizing the fundamental rights to livelihood and travel. This judgment reinforced the principles of fairness, personal liberty, and procedural due process.

Facts of the Case:

1. Petitioner as an Under-Trial: The petitioner was an under-trial in a criminal case, but no conviction had yet been secured against them. Despite being under trial, they sought the renewal of their passport.

2. Restricted Passport Validity: The Passport Authority, citing the criminal charges pending against the petitioner, issued a passport with limited validity, significantly shorter than the normal validity period (generally 10 years).

3. Challenge in Court: The petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that restricting the validity of the passport solely based on their status as an under-trial violated their constitutional rights, including the right to travel and the right to livelihood. They contended that such restrictions were arbitrary and disproportionate.

Legal Issues Considered:

1. Right to Travel (Article 21 of the Constitution of India):

- Whether restricting the validity of the petitioner’s passport violated their fundamental right to travel under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

2. Right to Livelihood (Article 21):

- Whether limiting the passport’s validity, thereby hindering the petitioner’s ability to pursue employment opportunities abroad, violated the right to livelihood, which is part of the right to life under Article 21.

3. Arbitrary Restrictions:

- Whether the limitation imposed by the Passport Authority was arbitrary and without proper justification, and if it amounted to the imposition of punishment without conviction.

4. Balancing Public Interest with Individual Rights:

- Whether the state has the right to restrict the freedom of an under-trial individual based on the nature of the criminal charges, and if such restrictions need to be balanced against the individual's fundamental rights.

Legal Points Considered for the Judgment:

1. Passport Act, 1967:

- Under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the government has the authority to deny or restrict the issuance of a passport if proceedings are pending against an individual. However, the law must be applied in a fair and proportionate manner.

2. Proportionality and Non-Arbitrariness:

- The court emphasized that any restriction on constitutional rights must be proportionate. Arbitrarily limiting the validity of a passport solely based on the petitioner being an under-trial, without considering the gravity of the charges or the progress of the trial, was deemed disproportionate.

3. Right to Livelihood and Personal Liberty (Article 21):

- The court reiterated that the right to livelihood includes the right to travel abroad for employment opportunities. Arbitrary restrictions on passport validity infringed upon this right, especially in cases where the individual was seeking work outside the country.

4. Presumption of Innocence:

- An under-trial person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The court held that merely being under trial does not justify punitive restrictions like limiting the validity of a passport, as this amounts to imposing a penalty before a conviction.

5. Judicial Precedents on Right to Travel:

- The court referred to precedents where the Supreme Court had held that the right to travel abroad is a part of the right to personal liberty. Restrictions on this right can only be justified if they are reasonable, non-arbitrary, and based on law.

Judgment:

The Rajasthan High Court struck down the restriction on the petitioner's passport validity as arbitrary, holding that such limitations violated the petitioner's right to personal liberty and livelihood under Article 21. The court directed the Passport Authority to renew the petitioner's passport with standard validity, unless there was a specific and proportionate reason to restrict it.

Significance of the Judgment:

1. Upholding Fundamental Rights: The court reaffirmed that fundamental rights such as the right to livelihood and the right to travel cannot be restricted arbitrarily, especially for individuals who have not been convicted of a crime.

2. Presumption of Innocence: The ruling emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence in legal proceedings, noting that being under trial does not automatically justify punitive measures like curbing one's travel rights.

3. Proportionality in Administrative Action: The judgment highlighted the principle that government actions must be proportionate to the circumstances and should not infringe on individual rights without compelling reasons.

This decision reinforces the balance between an individual's personal liberty and the state's interests in regulating certain rights, ensuring that under-trial individuals are not unfairly penalized.