Criminal Case Pendency Cannot Indefinitely Bar Passport Renewal When Trial Court Has Permitted Renewal: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal by a businessman challenging the refusal to renew his ordinary passport on the ground that criminal proceedings were pending against him. The Court held that pendency of a criminal case cannot be used to impose an indefinite bar on passport renewal, particularly where competent criminal courts have permitted renewal while retaining control over any foreign travel through prior-permission conditions and directions to redeposit the passport. Setting aside the High Court’s orders, the Bench directed the Ministry of External Affairs and the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata, to re-issue an ordinary passport for the normal period of ten years, subject to usual procedural requirements and to existing and future court orders regulating travel.
The dispute arose from the refusal of the passport authority to renew an ordinary passport after its expiry, citing the pendency of criminal proceedings and a subsisting conviction. The appellant had earlier been granted permission by competent criminal courts to seek renewal of the passport, subject to conditions restricting foreign travel without prior court approval. Despite producing certified copies of those judicial orders, the passport authority declined to re-issue the passport for the normal validity period, relying on statutory restrictions under the Passports Act, 1967.
The appellant challenged this refusal before the High Court, contending that once the criminal courts had granted no objection for renewal while retaining control over travel, the statutory bar could not be treated as absolute. The respondents opposed the claim, maintaining that in the absence of explicit permission to travel abroad for a defined period, renewal for a full term could not be granted. The High Court accepted the respondents’ position and dismissed the challenge, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Court observed that “This Court has repeatedly held in a catena of judgements that the right to travel abroad and the right to hold a passport are facets of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any restriction on that right must be fair, just and reasonable, and must bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose.” It stated that “when procedural safeguards are converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden into indefinite exclusions, the balance between the power of the State and the dignity of the individual is disturbed.”
While examining the statutory framework, the Court recorded that “Section 6(2)(f) is a ground for refusal at the stage of issue or re-issue, but it is expressly made subject to the other provisions of the Act,” including the exemption mechanism under Section 22. It noted that “GSR 570(E) does not create a new substantive bar beyond Section 6(2)(f)” and permits issuance or renewal of passports where criminal courts have applied their mind and granted permission subject to conditions.
The Court rejected the view that renewal could be allowed only when a criminal court specifies a particular foreign journey, observing that “nothing in the Passports Act requires the criminal court to convert every permission into a one-time licence to undertake a particular journey.” It further recorded that “the statute equally permits the court to allow renewal of the passport while retaining complete control over each instance of foreign travel.”
Addressing the reliance on the subsisting conviction, the Court stated that “Section 6(2)(f) speaks of proceedings at the pre-conviction stage,” and that the conviction could not be used to reinforce a bar under that provision when the appellate court had already granted permission for renewal. The Court also observed that “it is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport and the act of travelling abroad,” clarifying that control over travel lies with the criminal courts, not the passport authority.
The Court directed that “the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta … as well as the judgment and order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge … are set aside.”
“The respondents are directed to re-issue an ordinary passport to the appellant for the normal period of ten years from the date of issue,” and clarified that such re-issuance shall be “subject to compliance with the usual procedural requirements.”
The passport authority shall complete the re-issuance “within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata.”
“The passport so issued shall remain subject to all existing and future orders passed by the NIA Court, Ranchi, and the Delhi High Court,” including “the conditions that the appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court concerned and shall deposit the passport in that court as and when so directed.”
“All pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR Ms. Gauri Subramanium, Adv. Mrs. Shruti Singh, Adv. Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Shivam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhisek Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vartika Vaishnavi, Adv. Mr. Raghav Kohli, Adv. Mr. Adnam Yousaf, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Mr. Gopi Chand, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar B, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv.
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1476
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 17769 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Augustine George Masih
