28/03, 16:03] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1773297173196587123?t=aFfpqod6t-PmA017f_eCXQ&s=08[28/03, 16:03] sekarreporter1: Honorable Mrs. Justice Anitha Sumanth of MadrasbHigh court directed the Regional Passport Authority to issue a passport with a validity of 10 years to Mr. Karthi P. Chidambaram after hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Wilson, senior advocate appearing for the sitting MP.

[28/03, 16:03] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1773297173196587123?t=aFfpqod6t-PmA017f_eCXQ&s=08
[28/03, 16:03] sekarreporter1: Honorable Mrs. Justice Anitha Sumanth of MadrasbHigh court directed the Regional Passport Authority to issue a passport with a validity of 10 years to Mr. Karthi P. Chidambaram after hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Wilson, senior advocate appearing for the sitting MP.

Mr. Karthi Chidambaram had moved the HC when the Regional Passport Authority stated that his passport, which was due to expire on 5th March 2024, would only be renewed for one year. The Authority applied the notification of the central government dated 25th August 1993, as Mr. Chidambaram was facing criminal charges.

Appearing for Mr. Chidambaram, Mr. P. Wilson argued that there were no material evidences to prove that the petitioner was not entitled to hold a 10-year validity passport. Mr. Wilson submitted that false cases were slapped against the petitioner due to political motives, and as a Parliamentarian, he had to be with the people to perform his duties and function. There was no intention to leave the country endlessly, and he had to take permission to leave the country from the Criminal court each time. Therefore, his travel was regulated by the Criminal court, and travelling abroad had nothing to do with the validity period of passport.

Mr. Wilson submitted that every time the petitioner had scrupulously complied with the conditions of the criminal court by returning back to India, and the criminal court itself has recorded his good conduct in one of its orders. Therefore, like any other citizen of this country, he was entitled to hold a 10-year validity regular passport. He submitted that the right to travel is a fundamental right and to deny the same without any valid reasons would violate the same. He submitted that under Rule 12, a Regular passport is contemplated for every citizen with a validity period of 10 years, and therefore he is entitled to the same like any other citizen as the cases are still in a preliminary stage. He relied upon various judgments of Supreme Court and High courts which have held that right to hold passport with a validity period of 10 years can directed to be given by constitutional courts and prayed to grant 10 years validity passport to the Petitioner.

Mr. Arl Sundaresan opposed the same on the grounds that no person who is facing any criminal case in India is entitled to a passport with a validity of more than one year as per the 25th August 1993 notification. He submitted that the rule is that any person facing any criminal case is not entitled to hold a passport, and the central government notification issued under section 6 of the Passport act is an exemption that too for a limited period of 1 year. He submitted that the sitting MP is facing criminal cases and is not entitled to a passport with a validity of more than one year.

Concurring with the submission of Mr. P. Wilson, senior counsel, the High Court concluded that the Petitioner was entitled to a 10-year validity passport and directed the Regional Passport Officer Chennai to issue a passport with 10 years validity . After renewal, the petitioner was directed to hand over the same to the criminal court and travel outside India only on the basis of permission granted by the Criminal court each time.

https://youtu.be/pSv6pQWKoDw?si=XLO38-Kavw0Ga37y