Pass port officer can retain and stop, kept pending, timely released ordered by Supreme Court of India SPL Cri 4297 of 2023

 Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vishal Shah vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. of 2025, arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4297 of 2023), made significant observations and rulings regarding the impounding of the appellant's passport. Here is a detailed summary of the Court's findings and orders specifically related to the passport issue: Key Facts Related to Passport: Passport Impounding: The appellant's passport was impounded on October 3, 2018, by the Indian authorities under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967. This action was taken based on the multiple criminal and civil cases filed by the respondent (Monalisha Gupta) against the appellant and his family members. Challenge to Impounding: The appellant challenged the impounding of his passport before the Calcutta High Court through a writ petition (WPA No. 4743 of 2020). However, the High Court dismissed the petition on January 15, 2021, and upheld the impounding, barring the appellant from filing any further appeals under Section 11 of the Passport Act. Impact on Extradition Proceedings: Due to the impounding of his passport, the appellant was unable to return to India to appear in court. Consequently, the trial court ordered the initiation of extradition proceedings against him for non-appearance. Supreme Court's Findings on Passport Impounding: Violation of Natural Justice: The Court held that the impounding of the appellant's passport was illegal because it was done without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be followed before impounding a passport under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act, 1967. The authorities failed to provide any valid reasons or justification for the impounding, which rendered the action ex-facie illegal. No Valid Grounds for Impounding: The Court noted that the passport was impounded solely because the respondent had filed multiple cases against the appellant. However, the mere filing of cases does not automatically justify the impounding of a passport. The Court reiterated that the power to impound a passport must be exercised judiciously and only in the interest of the general public, as held in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). Passport as a Fundamental Right: The Court highlighted that the right to travel and hold a passport is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution (right to personal liberty). The impounding of a passport is a serious infringement on this right and should not be done lightly or without proper justification. Release of Passport: The Court directed the concerned authorities to release the appellant's passport within one week from the date of the judgment. The Court also clarified that the impounding of the passport was a key reason for the appellant's inability to appear in court, and thus, the extradition proceedings were unjustified. Final Orders Regarding Passport: The impounding of the appellant's passport was declared illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The authorities were directed to release the appellant's passport within one week. The Court emphasized that the passport should not have been impounded merely on the basis of the cases filed by the respondent, especially without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard. Conclusion on Passport Issue: The Supreme Court ruled that the impounding of the appellant's passport was unlawful and ordered its immediate release. The Court reaffirmed the importance of following due process and natural justice before taking such drastic actions, which infringe on an individual's fundamental right to personal liberty. The judgment serves as a reminder that the power to impound a passport must be exercised with caution and only in the interest of the general public, with proper justification.https://t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/76