The Kerala High Court recently ordered the re-issuance or renewal of passport against a person against whom red corner notice issued by the Interpol was pending.
The petitioner had approached the High Court against the denial of the authorities in re-issuing/ renewing his passport. The petitioner in the case was convicted in Qatar in 2020. There is a red corner notice against him on account of that. However, he submitted before the court that for the past more than 4 years, no steps have been taken by the Qatar authorities for his extradition from India.
Justice Gopinath P. relied on Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v State of Maharashtra (2009) where it was held that mere issuance of red corner notice is not sufficient for the arrest of a person in India. In the case it was held that unless the proceedings under Extradition Act, 1962 is initiated, a person cannot be extradited from India. The High Court held that there was no need to deny passport to the petitioner merely because a red corner notice is pending against him. The Court taking into account that Supreme Court through various cases has laid down that right to travel abroad was a part of personal liberty under Article 21, held that denial of passport services to the petitioner would be a deprivation of personal liberty.
It was brought to the notice of the Court that 2 criminal cases were pending against the petitioner – one in Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy and the other in Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court – III, North Paravur. The Government had stated before the Court that they have denied re-issuance of the passport to the petitioner on account of his 2 cases and the pending red corner notice. However, both the courts had permitted renewal/re-issue of the passport – Chalakkudy court for a period of 3 years and Paravur court for a period of 5 years. However, there was a condition added that the petitioner should obtain the permission from the respective courts before travelling abroad. The High Court held that the issuance of passport need not be denied because the courts did not grant permission to travel abroad especially considering that the petitioner has undertaken not to travel abroad without taking permission from the Court.
The High Court considering the orders of the trial court, directed the authority to issue him a passport for 3 years.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates S. Sanal Kumar (Sr.), T. J. Seema, Bhavana Velayudhan, Devarathan S., Anu Balakrishna Nambiar
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Sreelal Warriar, T. C. Krishna (SCGC), Sreejith V. S.
Case No: WP(C) 2723 of 2025
Case Title: Muhammed Rafsal v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
