Srinagar: A court here on Thursday gave its nod to the renewal of National Conference chief Farooq Abdullah’s passport for a year but maintained that travelling abroad is subject to obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority.
The sessions court issued a no objection certificate to the Regional Passport Officer for issuing the travel document to Abdullah, who is an accused in the JKCA scam case.
“An NOC is issued to the Passport Officer, Srinagar, with the direction to consider the issuance/renewal of the passport for a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order, subject to the condition that the petitioner /revisionist is not involved in any offence other than the case pending before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar,” additional sessions judge Farooq Ahmad Bhat said in a 14-page order.
The court also put a pre-condition that no other case for any other offence is registered against Abdullah within the country which debars the issuance of a passport.
It said in case Abdullah intends to travel outside the territorial limits of Jammu and Kashmir or abroad, he shall seek prior permission from the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar to leave the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
“In case any proceeding pending before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, or this court is varied or modified against the interest of the petitioner /revisionist, the NOC issued by this court shall stand revoked forthwith,” the court said in the order.
The CBI, which has investigated the alleged embezzlement of funds in JKCA then headed by Abdullah, had opposed the petition by contending that the veteran NC leader is facing prosecution in a serious corruption case investigated pursuant to directions of the high court.
The agency had also argued that Abdullah had earlier been subjected to coercive process before the trial court.
“… Having regard to the gravity of the accusations, there exists a reasonable apprehension that issuance of a passport may facilitate his departure from India, thereby frustrating the administration,” the agency had contended.
The court, referring to a Supreme Court judgement, said the distinction between possession of a passport and permission to travel abroad was emphasised, and observed that issuance of a passport merely equips a citizen with a travel document and does not automatically authorise departure from India in disregard of subsisting judicial restrictions.
“Consequently, denial of renewal or issuance solely on account of pendency of criminal proceedings, where judicial safeguards adequately protect the administration of justice, would amount to an unreasonable restriction upon personal liberty.
“Therefore, any no objection certificate, if considered appropriate in terms of the statutory notification, would operate only to enable the Regional Passport Office to process the petitioner’s application in accordance with law and would neither supersede the bail conditions imposed by the learned magistrate nor confer any liberty upon the petitioner to travel abroad without obtaining separate permission from the trial court or such other court as may be competent in law,” it said.
The court also said that the jurisdiction to regulate the petitioner’s physical departure from India continues to remain distinct from the administrative act of issuance of a passport.
