Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Passport Issuance Despite NDPS Trial |‘Mere Pendency Of Criminal Case Cannot Deny Right To Hold Passport’ | Allows Custody Of Passport With Trial Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harsh Bunger directed the Regional Passport Office to process the issuance of a passport to an individual facing trial under the NDPS Act, upon submission of a specific undertaking to the trial court. The Court held that the right to possess a passport is a component of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot be denied merely due to pending criminal proceedings. The Court permitted the petitioner to obtain a passport while directing that it be deposited with the trial court and granted liberty to seek permission for foreign travel if necessary.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to issue a passport. The petitioner was facing trial in FIR No. 89 dated 12.05.2022 registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga.
Owing to the pendency of the trial, the petitioner applied to the Special Court, Moga for permission to apply for a fresh passport. Vide order dated 19.02.2025, the trial court granted permission in view of the Ministry of External Affairs’ circular dated 21.08.2014 and various judicial pronouncements.
Following the court's order, the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of a passport on 12.03.2025. However, the Passport Office, Chandigarh, issued a file closure notice on 30.03.2025 and subsequently requested clarification on 29.04.2025, citing an adverse police verification report. On 07.05.2025, the Passport Office issued a communication requiring the petitioner to obtain fresh permission from the trial court explicitly allowing departure from India in accordance with Notification No. GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993.
In the writ petition, the petitioner contended that he did not intend to travel abroad at present and only sought issuance of a passport as a matter of right. He expressed willingness to deposit the passport with the trial court and obtain prior permission for any future foreign travel.
The respondents, represented by the Central Government Counsel, opposed the plea citing Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which empowers the passport authority to refuse issuance to persons facing criminal proceedings unless explicit permission to travel abroad is granted by the competent court.
The petitioner responded that the order of the trial court dated 19.02.2025 sufficiently granted permission to apply for a passport and that the requirement for explicit travel permission was inapplicable as there was no current intention to leave the country.
The Court, after hearing both parties, referred to various judgments including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where it was observed: “No person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure.”
The Court noted that the Passports Act, 1967, while regulating the issuance and refusal of passports, must meet the test of non-arbitrariness under Article 21. In Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, the Apex Court stated: “The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right… It extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship.”
Referring to Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court noted: “The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21.”
The Court also cited Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI, where it was held that: “Refusal of a passport can only occur where the applicant has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to not less than two years’ imprisonment in the preceding five years.”
Further, Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India was relied upon to reinforce the principle that mere pendency of a criminal case does not justify refusal to issue or renew a passport. The Court also referred to guidelines issued in Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India, clarifying that where courts permit renewal of passports under the Passport Rules, 1980, issuance should follow accordingly.
Considering the undertaking submitted in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the Court recorded: “The petitioner hereby undertakes that in the eventuality the passport is issued, it shall remain in the custody of the Hon’ble Trial Court. The petitioner further undertakes to obtain prior permission before any travel abroad and to return for trial proceedings.”
The Court issued the following directions:
The petitioner shall submit an undertaking along with an affidavit before the concerned trial court(s), where criminal proceedings are pending, stating that he shall not leave India during the pendency of the case without permission of the court and that he shall cooperate in the conclusion of the trial proceedings.
Upon filing such an undertaking and affidavit, the trial court shall issue a certified copy of the same within a period of two weeks.
The petitioner shall thereafter submit the certified copy of the undertaking before the Regional Passport Office for issuance of the passport.
The Regional Passport Office shall consider the application for issuance of the passport in light of the Court’s observations and the petitioner’s undertaking, and process the issuance strictly in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy.
Upon preparation of the passport, the petitioner shall deposit the original passport before the trial court where proceedings in FIR No. 89 dated 12.05.2022 are pending, within ten days from the date of receipt of the passport.
The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the trial court in the future by filing an application for permission to travel abroad, and the trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law.
All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ayushi Sharma, Central Government Counsel
Case Title: Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:067788
Case Number: CWP-14561-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Harsh Bunger
[Read/Download order]
