In a significant legal development, the High Court of Karnataka has firmly asserted that the police or criminal courts, acting under Sections 102 or 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code, lack the authority to seize or impound passports. The court's recent ruling specifically quashed the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Bengaluru, which had sought to impound the passport of Mumbai businessman Nitin Shambhukumar Kasliwal, as reported by PTI.
The case traces back to 1999 when Kasliwal entered into an agreement with various lenders for secured loans. Subsequently, in 2015, the lending banks initiated a debt recovery case before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, seeking repayment and, in default, the attachment and sale of Kasliwal's properties.
Advertisement
The tribunal, asserting powers akin to a civil court, ordered the retention of Kasliwal's passport on April 16, 2015. Despite Kasliwal's subsequent applications for the release of his passport, citing the need for renewal before its validity expiration, the tribunal rejected his requests. This led Kasliwal to approach the High Court.
Justice M Nagaprasanna presided over Kasliwal's petition, delivering the judgment on December 6, 2023. The court highlighted that the tribunal, despite having powers resembling those of a civil court, lacked the authority to impound passports.
"The Passport Act is a special enactment, and it is trite that it, being a special enactment, would prevail over any power of even the civil court or criminal court to retain or impound a passport," stated the court in its judgment. It clarified that even though Sections 102 and 104 empower the police and courts to seize and impound documents, they do not extend to passports.
Advertisement
Ordering the release of Kasliwal's passport, the court emphasized that the act of the tribunal in directing the surrender or detention of a citizen's passport would amount to impounding, a power unavailable to the tribunal.
