Moosa Pattupara v. State Of Kerala: Affirmation of Accused's Right to Travel Abroad Without Court Permission in Pending Criminal Cases

Introduction

The case of Moosa Pattupara v. State Of Kerala adjudicated by the Kerala High Court on February 17, 2022, addresses a pivotal issue concerning the rights of an accused in a criminal case to travel abroad. The petitioner, Moosa Pattupara, faced charges under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. After being granted bail, Mr. Pattupara sought to travel abroad to rejoin his employment in Saudi Arabia. However, his application to proceed with the trial in his absence was dismissed by the lower court, citing the necessity of obtaining permission under the Passports Act, 1967, specifically referencing Notification GSR 570(E) dated August 25, 1993.

Summary of the Judgment

The Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Kauser Edappagath, overturned the lower court's decision, allowing Mr. Pattupara to travel abroad without seeking additional permission despite the pending criminal case. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, and concluded that holding a valid passport exempts an individual from obtaining further permissions under the specified notification, provided there are no specific bail restrictions imposed. Additionally, the Court emphasized the fundamental right to travel as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively cites several landmark cases that have shaped the interpretation of fundamental rights and procedural laws in India:

Francis Manjooran v. Government of India [ILR (1965) 2 Ker 663]: Established that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel.
Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (AIR 1967 SC 1836): Affirmed that deprivation of the right to travel abroad requires a procedure established by law.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248]: Expanded the interpretation of Article 21, emphasizing that any deprivation of rights must follow a fair procedure.
Bhaskar Industries Limited v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Limited [(2001) 3 KLT 307 (SC)]: Outlined the conditions under which an accused can be exempted from personal appearance in court.
Puneet Dalmia v. Central Bureau Of Investigation, Hyderabad ((2020) 12 SCC 695: AIR 2020 SC 214): Extended the principles of granting exemption from personal appearance to warrant cases.
Noorjahan v. Moideen ((2000) 2 KLT 756): Established the court's discretionary power to exempt the accused from personal appearance in warrant cases.
Raju v. State Of Kerala (2009 (3) KHC 14): Followed the precedent set in Noorjahan v. Moideen regarding exemptions from personal appearance.
Arun Baby v. State Of Kerala ((2021) 3 KLT 1014): Reinforced the court’s authority to dispense with the accused's personal attendance when in the interest of justice.

Legal Reasoning

The Court delved into the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, particularly sections 3, 5, 6, and 10, to interpret the conditions under which passport issuance and endorsements could be refused. The pivotal analysis centered on distinguishing between S.6(1) and S.6(2) of the Act:

S.6(1): Pertains to the refusal of endorsements on an existing passport, applicable only on specific grounds not including pending criminal cases.
S.6(2): Relates to the refusal of issuing a passport, where pending criminal proceedings are indeed a ground for refusal.

However, the Court noted that the Government’s Notification GSR No. 570(E) of August 25, 1993, exempts individuals with pending criminal proceedings from the restrictions of S.6(2)(f), thereby allowing them to travel provided they possess a valid passport. The petitioner had already been granted a valid passport, and the pending criminal case did not automatically impound it unless specific conditions were imposed as part of bail.

Furthermore, under Cr.P.C. S.317, the Court has the authority to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused if it is deemed not indispensable for the trial. Mr. Pattupara’s situation, compounded by employment obligations abroad and the impact of COVID-19 restrictions, justified the application of S.317 to allow the trial to proceed in his absence.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent by clarifying that possessing a valid passport exempts an accused from seeking additional permissions to travel abroad, even when criminal proceedings are pending. It reinforces the interpretation of fundamental rights under the Constitution, particularly the right to personal liberty and the right to travel. Future cases involving similar circumstances will likely refer to this judgment to argue for the right to travel without court-imposed restrictions, provided legal conditions such as valid passports and absence of restrictive bail conditions are met.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To enhance understanding, the following legal concepts and terminologies from the judgment are elucidated:

Passports Act, 1967: An Indian law governing the issuance of passports and regulating the departure of Indian citizens from the country.
S.6(1) vs. S.6(2): Sections dealing with the refusal to endorse an existing passport (S.6(1)) versus the refusal to issue a new passport (S.6(2)) based on specific grounds.
Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25/8/1993: A government notification exempting certain individuals with pending criminal cases from passport issuance restrictions.
Cr.P.C. S.317: A provision allowing courts to proceed with a trial in the absence of the accused if their presence is not critical.
Article 21 of the Constitution: Guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty, including the right to travel abroad.
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Powers: The judgment distinguishes between non-negotiable grounds for refusal and areas where the passport authority has discretion.

Conclusion

The decision in Moosa Pattupara v. State Of Kerala underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding fundamental rights, particularly the right to personal liberty and freedom of movement. By determining that holding a valid passport sufficiently upholds an individual's right to travel abroad, even amidst pending criminal proceedings, the Kerala High Court has provided clear guidance for both the judiciary and the passport authorities. This alignment with constitutional principles ensures that individuals are not unduly restricted from exercising their rights unless substantiated by lawful and specific conditions.