'Non-Application Of Mind, Impounding Over A Private Complaint Without Any Rhyme Or Reason': Madras High Court On Impounding Of Leena Manimekalai's Passport

Madras High Court has recently ordered the release of filmmaker Leena Manimekalai's passport impounded over the pendency of criminal defamation proceedings against her. A single-judge bench of Justice M. Dhandapani ordered the Regional Passport Office, Chennai to release Manimekalai's Passport within one week on receipt of court order. In the order, the court has elaborately explained the illegality of impounding the petitioner's passport and the non-application of mind by the regional passport officer so as to invoke Sections 10(3)(e) and Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act. The court has also briefly mentioned the overzealousness of the passport authority in taking the extreme step of cancelling the passport citing a private complaint. Observing that judicial discipline warrants the Court to refrain from dealing any further on the aspect, the court added the following in the order: "Offences of criminal nature, which have far-reaching consequences and more penal in nature, which affects the society, wherein persons who have committed such heinous offences, being holders of passport, in such of those cases, seldom the passport authority, invoking its powers u/s 10 (3) (e) of the Act, impounds the passport of such of those individuals. Yet, for an offence, alleged to have been committed u/s 500 IPC and that too on a private complaint, the passport, without any rhyme or reason, after a lapse of four years from the date of issuance of the passport has taken the extreme step of cancelling the passport of the 1st party, which act does not augur well with this Court" While upholding the personal liberty of the petitioner, the High Court has also set aside the Criminal Original Petition filed by Film Director Susi Ganesan against the Chennai Principal Sessions Court Order setting aside the passport impoundment order of Saidapet Metropolitan Magistrate. Court's Observations First of all, it was observed that the courts are not empowered to rely on Section 104 CrPC to pass an impoundment order of passport; there are numerous apex court judgments underscoring that enquiry and impounding order is in the exclusive domain of passport authorities. Therefore, Sessions Court setting aside the Saidapet Magistrate's erroneous passport impoundment order was right in law, the court concluded. Moving on, the court examined the ambit of Sections 10(3)(e) and Section 12 (1) (b) of the Passports Act. Section 10(3)(e) allows a passport authority to impound if criminal proceedings are pending against the holder of the passport in India. Section 12(1) (b) mentions about the offence of suppressing information or furnishing false information to obtain a passport. The court examined the applicability of these statutory provisions to the case at hand. The court noted that the application for passport renewal was made and thereafter it was issued in 2017. The private complaint by Susi Ganesan alleging criminal defamation was made in late 2018. Hnece, there weren't any violations of Section 10(3)(e) or 12 (1)(b) when the passport application was made by Manimekalai, the court recorded in the order. "Further, it could safely be presumed that at the time of renewal of the passport, the passport authority would definitely have called for report from the law enforcing agency with regard to the 1st party and only after satisfying itself, the renewal of passport would have been processed. That being the case, invocation of Section 12 (1) (b) against the 1st party clearly shows total non-application of mind on the part of the respondent authority", the court added. About the show cause notices issued by RPO, Chennai to Leena Manimekalai, the court noted that merely quoting some police verification report without actually putting her on notice about the same and claiming that criminal case is pending before the court would not suffice to pass the impugned order impounding the passport. The counsel for the Regional Passport Office had previously argued that they took action upon the adverse police report, invoking its own powers under Section 10(3) (e), and not pursuant to the trial court order under Section 104 CrPC. Assuming that to be true, the court notes: "…An advert to Section 10 (3) (h) is mandatory, as without the passport authority being brought to notice about the passport holder evading warrant or summons or warrant of arrest by a court of law, the passport authority cannot act on the alleged report of the law enforcing agency and impound the passport, more so when on the crucial date, i.e., the date of renewal, no criminal case was pending against the 1st party..." Upon the issuance of the first show cause notice and the reply of the petitioner, the passport authority had not initiated any action on the same if the reply of Manimekalai was non satisfactory. After another six months, when the passport authority came to know of...

'Non-Application Of Mind, Impounding Over A Private Complaint Without Any Rhyme Or Reason': Madras High Court On Impounding Of Leena Manimekalai's Passport

Sebin James

Tags