Home  > Recent Judgements  > PASSPORT RENEWAL CANNOT BE REFUSED ON THE GROUND OF PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WHEN TRIAL COURT PERMITTED RENEWAL

Dec  23- 2025

PASSPORT RENEWAL CANNOT BE REFUSED ON THE GROUND OF PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WHEN TRIAL COURT PERMITTED RENEWAL

Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India, in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Anr. (decided on 19 December 2025), has delivered a significant judgment reaffirming the constitutional protection accorded to the right to travel abroad and the right to hold a passport as facets of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court categorically held that pendency of criminal proceedings cannot operate as an indefinite or automatic bar on renewal of a passport, particularly where competent criminal courts have permitted such renewal while retaining control over foreign travel.

This decision assumes heightened importance in an era where administrative authorities frequently invoke statutory embargoes mechanically, often undermining judicial permissions and constitutional guarantees.

Constitutional Foundation: Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India:

At the very outset, the Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih located the issue within the broader constitutional framework of personal liberty. Justice Nath, speaking for the Court, made the following foundational observation:

“Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court reiterated that while the State may regulate this freedom in the interests of justice, security, or public order, any restraint must satisfy the tests of fairness, proportionality, and legality.

Background of the Case:

The appellant, a businessman, held an ordinary passport valid from August 2013 to August 2023. During this period, he became an accused in proceedings under the NIA Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and was also convicted in a separate CBI coal block case, with his sentence subsequently suspended by the Delhi High Court.

As the expiry of his passport approached, the appellant obtained explicit “no objection” orders from the NIA Court in Ranchi, which allowed renewal subject to strict conditions, including re-deposit of the renewed passport and prohibition on foreign travel without permission, and the Delhi High Court, which expressly permitted renewal of the passport for a regular period of ten years, while continuing the restriction on foreign travel.

Despite these judicial permissions, the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata refused renewal, citing Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. This refusal was upheld by the Calcutta High Court, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Statutory Framework: The Passport Act, 1967:

Section 6(2)(f) mandates refusal of a passport where criminal proceedings are pending. However, the Supreme Court emphasised that this provision is not absolute and must be read in conjunction with Section 22 of the Passports Act, which empowers the Central Government to grant exemptions, and Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25th August 1993, which creates a controlled exemption regime for persons facing criminal proceedings.

The Court clarified that the legitimate purpose of Section 6(2)(f) is not punitive but preventive, to ensure the accused remains amenable to the jurisdiction of criminal courts.

Judicial Permissions and Administrative Outreach:

The Supreme Court found fault with the approach adopted by the Passport Authority and the Calcutta High Court, which treated Section 6(2)(f) as an unyielding bar unless the criminal court expressly permitted a specific foreign trip.

Rejecting this interpretation, the Court observed:

“The legitimate purpose behind Section 6(2)(f) and Section 10(3)(e) is to ensure that a person facing criminal proceedings remain amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court… To add to these safeguards an indefinite denial of a renewed passport, when both criminal courts have consciously permitted renewal, would be disproportionate and unreasonable.”

The Court stressed the critical distinction between possession of a passport and actual travel abroad, noting that the latter remains entirely within the control of criminal courts.

Reading GSR 570(E) Harmoniously:

A central issue before the Court was the interpretation of GSR 570(E). The Supreme Court clarified that the notification does not require criminal courts to grant advance permission for every prospective foreign journey as a precondition for passport renewal. Instead, it allows courts to retain supervisory control by mandating prior permission for travel.

The Court held:

“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, and the promise of the Constitution is put at risk.”

Thus, once judicial permission for renewal is granted—subject to conditions—the administrative authority cannot superimpose an additional embargo.

Conviction, Appeal, and Passport Rights:

The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the appellant’s subsisting conviction justified refusal under Section 6(2)(f). It clarified that:

  1. a) Section 6(2)(f) applies at the pre-conviction stage;
  2. b) Post-conviction cases fall, if at all, under Section 6(2)(e), which carries distinct thresholds.

Relying on Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI, the Court reaffirmed that pendency of a criminal appeal cannot, by itself, justify refusal of passport renewal.

Final Holding of the Court:

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgements of the Calcutta High Court, directed the re-issuance of an ordinary passport to the appellant for the normal period of 10 years; and clarified that the passport shall remain subject to all existing and future orders of the criminal courts, including restrictions on foreign travel.

Suggestions and Criticisms of the Judgement:

While the judgment is a strong reaffirmation of constitutional liberty, it also exposes systemic weaknesses in passport administration. First, the recurring tendency of passport authorities to mechanically invoke Section 6(2)(f) reflects a bureaucratic risk-aversion mindset that prioritises administrative convenience over constitutional rights. Clearer statutory guidelines or binding executive instructions could reduce such friction. Secondly, although the Court harmonised GSR 570(E) effectively, the notification itself remains procedurally complex and ambiguously worded, inviting inconsistent interpretations. Legislative clarification distinguishing passport possession from permission to travel would enhance legal certainty. Lastly, frequent judicial intervention in routine passport matters indicates an institutional failure at the administrative level. A more robust internal appellate or review mechanism within the passport framework could prevent unnecessary constitutional litigation, ensuring that Article 21 is protected not only in courtrooms, but also in everyday governance.