By Our Correspondent

JAIPUR – The permission to travel abroad for performing Haj, Umrah and Ziyarat cannot be denied on the ground of pendency of criminal case involving dispute with a person’s wife, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled. In a significant order, the High Court has held that the denial of such permission amounts to violation of fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A resident of Kota’s Vigyan Nagar, Mohammed Muslim Khan, 61, had challenged an order of the Regional Passport Office rejecting his application for re-issuance of passport. Khan said he wanted to travel to the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah in Saudi Arabia for the performance of Haj, but the passport office rejected his application and informed him that no permission had been granted to him to leave India for the foreign travel.

Khan is facing trial for the offences under Sections 498-A (husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of Indian Penal Code before the court of Judicial

Magistrate No.3 (North), Kota. He was in possession of a passport and he wanted to go abroad for attending the rituals of Haj.

Khan submitted an application in the trial court seeking permission to go abroad. The application was disposed of on April 16, 2025, with an observation and direction that, in case, the petitioner prefers an application before the Passport Authority, then it would pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Pursuant to the court’s order, the petitioner approached the Regional Passport Office at Kota, but it informed him vide its letter dated May 7, 2025 that no permission had been granted to him to depart from India. After receiving the letter, Khan once again approached the trial court seeking permission to go abroad for the religious trip.

This time, the application submitted by Khan was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate’s court on a technical ground that such permission had already been granted in a similar application as decided vide order dated April 16, 2025. Khan’s counsel submitted in the High Court that in spite of submitting two different applications seeking permission to go abroad, they were never decided on merits and the permission was never granted.

The counsel representing the respondents – the Ministry of External Affairs and the Regional Passport Office, Kota – opposed the arguments raised by the petitioner and submitted that as per the notification dated August 25, 1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, the petitioner cannot be allowed to depart from India as a criminal case is pending against him before the competent court.

“Unless the permission is granted to the petitioner by the competent court, he cannot be allowed to go abroad. Under these circumstances, the respondents have not committed an error in issuing the letter dated May 7, 2025, and the High Court’s interference is not warranted,” the counsel for the respondents contended.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that the pendency of criminal case under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC cannot be a ground to deny permission to the petitioner to travel abroad for the religious purpose to perform Haj, Umrah and Ziyarat. Such action on the part of the respondent amounted to violation of fundamental right to personal liberty of the petitioner contained under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court held.

“Each and every citizen of India has a right to go abroad, as the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)has held that even the notification dated August 25, 1993, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, also provides such procedure by which any person against whom a criminal case is pending can be allowed to depart from India, if the permission is granted by the competent court,” Justice Dhand said in his seven-page order.

The Judge observed that the court was required to draw a balance between the right of

the petitioner to travel abroad and the right of the prosecution to duly proceed with the trial against the petitioner. “From the perusal of the judgment passed in the Maneka Gandhi case, it is clear that the paramount consideration is given to the conditions imposed on the person who has been granted permission to go abroad, so as to ensure that they do not flee from the trial,” the court said.

While quashing the order of the Regional Passport Office, the court permitted Khan to go abroad for two months, subject to certain conditions. The conditions included the petitioner’s appearance before the trial court after his arrival in India for participating in the trial, not visiting any other place except Makkah and Madinah, and the surrender of his passport in the trial court.

Before parting with the order, court issued a judicial direction to all the subordinate courts in the state to pass a clear and specific order granting or not granting permission to travel

abroad, whenever an application is submitted by an accused to leave the country for foreign travel.

Because of non-passing of clear and specific orders, the Passport Authority is often not in a position to take appropriate decision, the court said. “Henceforth, it is expected from all the subordinate courts to pass clear and specific orders whenever such application is submitted by the accused, to avoid any kind of confusion in the mind of the Passport Authority,” Justice Dhand said.