28/03, 16:03] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1773297173196587123?t=aFfpqod6t-PmA017f_eCXQ&s=08[28/03, 16:33] sekarreporter1: Mr. Karti Chidambaram through his lawyer Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan had filed a Writ Petition before the Madras High Court for renewal of passport for a regular validity of 10 years since the Regional Passport Authority had indicated that his passport, which was due to expire on 5th March 2024, would only be renewed for one year

[28/03, 16:03] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1773297173196587123?t=aFfpqod6t-PmA017f_eCXQ&s=08
[28/03, 16:33] sekarreporter1: Mr. Karti Chidambaram through his lawyer Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan had filed a Writ Petition before the Madras High Court for renewal of passport for a regular validity of 10 years since the Regional Passport Authority had indicated that his passport, which was due to expire on 5th March 2024, would only be renewed for one year.

Appearing for Mr. Chidambaram, Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, Advocate 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.

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.

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.

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. The High Court also observed that Mr. Karti had complied with all the conditions imposed by the Court while travelling abroad and there was no reason to curtail the validity of the passport.