New Delhi (Agency): The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition that urged the Regional Passport Officer to reissue a passport to the petitioner who had misplaced his original one, without mandating the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) with the police. The rejection of the plea upholds the rules dictated under the Passport Act, setting a precedent for future cases of similar nature.
Presiding over the case, Justice Krishna S Dixit of the Karnataka High Court adjudicated on the petition lodged by Sridhar Kulkarni A. Dismissing the petition, Justice Dixit stated, “Right to travel abroad is a Fundamental right is true but it is regulated by the Passport Act and rules framed thereunder. If rules prescribe a procedure, one has to follow the same by making appropriate application along with the requisite documents.”
Under Section 24 of the Passport Act, the Central Government has the authority to formulate rules for implementing the objectives of the Act. These rules extend to issues like the issuance of a replacement passport or travel document in situations where the original passport or travel document has been lost, damaged, or destroyed.
The Passport Rules of 1980, in Schedule V, clearly stipulate that the onus of safeguarding a passport or travel document lies solely on the holder. It categorically states that the passport should not be deliberately lost, damaged, or destroyed. Furthermore, if a passport is lost or destroyed inadvertently, it is incumbent on the holder to report this to the nearest passport authority or the nearest Indian Mission or Post and the local police.
In a similar vein, Annexure F of the Rules requires an applicant seeking a replacement for a lost/damaged passport to provide comprehensive details of how, when, and where the loss or damage occurred. The applicant is also expected to provide details of the FIR lodged at the police station and to disclose if they have lost or damaged any passports previously.
The petitioner, implicated in an offense lodged by his spouse, based his argument on the premise that the Right to Travel, upheld in Article 21 of the Constitution in the Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978) case, mandates the Regional Passport Officer to issue a fresh passport in the event of one being lost. The petitioner further relied on an order from the Magistrate court permitting him to travel overseas.
However, Deputy Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan H, who represented the Union, retorted that although the Right to Travel Abroad is recognized as a Fundamental Right, it is controlled by the stipulations in the Passport Act, 1967. Bhushan argued, “It is not that the passport was not given to the petitioner but he has lost the same and is now seeking for a renewed (re-issue) passport.”
Upon hearing both parties and reviewing the presented evidence, the Court decided not to grant the request, stating that the petitioner had not complied with the format prescribed by the Passport Rules for the reissuance of a lost passport. The Court dismissed the petition but added, “However, if the petitioner makes an appropriate application accompanied by requisite documents and fees the same shall be considered by respondents RPO, expeditiously and in accordance with law.”
