“Denial of Passport Services Due to Red Corner Notice Is a ‘Negation of the Right of Personal Liberty’”: Kerala High Court Quashes Orders and Directs Passport Re-issuance
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Gopinath P. allowed a writ petition challenging the denial of passport re-issuance and quashed the impugned orders of the Passport Officer and the Appellate Authority. The Court held that the pendency of a red corner notice and criminal cases does not, by itself, disqualify a citizen from obtaining passport services where judicial permission exists. It directed the competent authority to process the petitioner’s application in accordance with law and clarified that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior judicial permission.
The petitioner, aged 31, applied for the re-issuance of his passport while facing two pending criminal cases. One case, registered as Crime No.502 of 2018 at Mala Police Station, pertains to alleged offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second, Crime No.736 of 2019 at Varappuzha Police Station, involves allegations under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. These cases are pending trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy and Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, North Paravur, respectively.
The petitioner had obtained judicial orders from both courts permitting the re-issuance of a passport: a three-year validity granted by the Chalakkudy Court, and a five-year validity from the North Paravur Court. Relying on these orders, he applied for the passport re-issuance.
Subsequently, the Regional Passport Office, Kochi (respondent no.3), rejected the application via order dated 30.10.2024, citing the pendency of a red corner notice issued by Interpol in connection with a conviction in Qatar. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority (respondent no.2) was also dismissed by order dated 13.01.2025.
The petitioner contended that the red corner notice, issued after a conviction in Qatar on 18.10.2020, had not led to any extradition proceedings over four years. He argued that his application should not have been denied solely on this basis. He submitted that he had not received any permission to travel abroad but had undertaken not to do so without securing leave from the competent courts.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the petitioner asserted that red corner notices lack the legal authority to function as arrest warrants or grounds for denying passport services in the absence of formal extradition steps.
The Central Government Counsel opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner was facing criminal trials in India and was subject to an international red corner notice. It was argued that the provisions of Sections 6(2)(d) and 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, along with G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 issued under Section 22 of the Act, authorized refusal of a passport in such circumstances unless there was specific permission to travel abroad.
The respondents submitted that the petitioner had not secured such permission to leave the country, and that the red corner notice indicated evasion of legal process in a foreign jurisdiction, thereby justifying the denial of passport services.
The Court observed: “The petitioner is entitled to a direction to the competent among the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for re-issue of passport.”
It stated: “The orders obtained by the petitioner from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, North Paravur indicate that both the Courts have granted permission for the issue of a passport to the petitioner though both Courts have clearly made it a condition that the petitioner shall obtain permission of the Court before traveling abroad.”
The Court referred to Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, and stated that: “The Government of India has, in the exercise of power under Section 22 of the 1967 Act, issued G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993.” It noted that: “As far as the Passport Authority is concerned, the fact that Exts.P1 and P2 orders do not specifically grant permission to the petitioner to travel abroad need not be a reason to deny the re-issue of the passport, especially when the petitioner has undertaken that he will not travel abroad without obtaining permission from the Courts in question.”
On the issue of the red corner notice, the Court stated: “In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani, the mere fact that a red corner notice is pending against a citizen of India is no ground to deny passport services to him.”
Quoting directly from the said judgment, the Court recorded: “A red corner notice by itself cannot be a basis of arrest or transfer of an Indian citizen to a foreign jurisdiction... Extradition of a person from India to any other foreign country is covered by the Parliament Act, namely, the Act.”
The Court also stated: “The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that despite the fact that the petitioner was convicted in Qatar as early as in the year 2020, no steps have been taken to extradite the petitioner from India even after the passage of more than four years after the conviction.”
It concluded: “The denial of passport services to the petitioner would amount to a negation of the right of the petitioner to travel abroad, which has been held to be a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext.P10 and Ext.P15 orders. It directed that the 3rd respondent shall process the application filed by the petitioner for the re-issue of his passport in accordance with the law and subject to compliance with usual formalities.
It clarified that the petitioner shall not leave India without obtaining permission from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – III, North Paravur.
It further stated that since Ext.P1 permits the re-issuance of a passport for five years and Ext.P2 order permits the issuance of a passport only for three years, the petitioner is entitled to a passport only for a period of three years and not for a period of five years.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: S. Sanal Kumar (Senior Advocate), T.J. Seema, Bhavana Velayudhan, Devavrathan S., Anu Balakrishnan Nambiar
For the Respondents: Sreelal Warriar, T.C. Krishna (Central Government Counsel), Sreejith V.S. (Government Pleader)
Case Title: Muhammed Rafsal v. Union of India & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:26159
Case Number: WP(C) No. 2723 of 2025
Bench: Justice Gopinath P.
[Read/Download order]
