Passport Renewal Cannot Be Denied Solely Due To Pending Criminal Proceedings When Courts Permit It: Supreme Court
The Apex Court held that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act does not operate as an absolute bar to the renewal of a passport when criminal courts, while retaining control over foreign travel, have consciously permitted renewal.
The Supreme Court has held that a passport authority cannot refuse to renew a passport merely because criminal proceedings are pending, when the concerned criminal courts have permitted renewal while retaining supervision over the individual's foreign travel.
The ruling came while allowing an appeal filed against the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata's refusal to renew the appellant’s passport for the normal ten-year period, despite “no objection” orders passed by the Delhi High Court and the NIA Court, Ranchi.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih observed: “The passport authority is not required, at the renewal stage, to demand a schedule of future journeys or visas which may not yet exist. Its task is to see whether, despite pending proceedings, the criminal courts have chosen to keep the possibility of travel open under their supervision. Once that position is clear, GSR 570(E) applies, and the bar under Section 6(2)(f) cannot be invoked to refuse renewal altogether”.
Advocate Anup Kumar, AOR, represented the appellant, while Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, represented the respondents.
Background
The appellant was issued an ordinary passport in August 2013, valid until August 2023. He was later arraigned as an accused in an NIA case relating to alleged unlawful activities and was also convicted in a separate CBI coal block matter, in which his sentence was suspended by the Delhi High Court.
In the NIA case, the appellant was released on bail subject to conditions, including a requirement that he deposit his passport and not leave India without court permission. As the expiry of his passport approached, he sought permission from the NIA Court for renewal. The NIA Court permitted the release of the passport for the limited purpose of renewal, directed re-deposit after renewal, and prohibited any foreign travel without permission.
Separately, the Delhi High Court granted no objection for renewal of the passport for a regular period of ten years, while continuing the condition that the appellant shall not leave the country without prior permission.
Despite disclosure of all pending proceedings and production of both court orders, the passport authority declined renewal, invoking Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act. The Calcutta High Court upheld the refusal, holding that the statutory bar continued to apply in the absence of specific permission to travel abroad.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, upon examining the material placed on record, reiterated that liberty, including the freedom to travel, is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, and any restriction on such liberty must be narrowly tailored, proportionate, and anchored in law.
Interpreting the statutory scheme of the Passports Act, the Court noted that Section 5 governs issuance, while Section 6 exhaustively lists the grounds for refusal, including pendency of criminal proceedings under Section 6(2)(f). However, the Court emphasised that Section 6(2) itself operates “subject to the other provisions of the Act,” including Section 22.
The Court explained that Section 22 empowers the Central Government to grant exemptions, and that GSR 570(E), a notification issued by the Central Government under this provision, creates a controlled exemption allowing issuance or renewal of passports to persons facing criminal proceedings, subject to conditions imposed by the criminal court.
The Apex Court clarified that “GSR 570(E) does not compel the criminal court to authorise a particular journey and proceeds on the broader premise that where the criminal court permits the applicant to depart from India and the period of validity can be anchored either in the court’s order or in the default periods mentioned in the notification, the embargo in Section 6(2)(f) stands lifted to that extent”.
The Court further explained that “the legitimate purpose behind Section 6(2)(f) and Section 10(3)(e) is to ensure that a person facing criminal proceedings remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court”, while holding that “to add to these safeguards an indefinite denial of even a renewed passport, when both criminal courts have consciously permitted renewal, would be a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on the appellant’s liberty”.
The Court added that the passport authority is not required, at the renewal stage, to demand a schedule of future journeys or visas that may not yet exist, stating that its task is limited to determining whether the criminal courts have kept open the possibility of travel under judicial supervision.
On the facts of the case, the Court found that both the NIA Court and the Delhi High Court had consciously permitted renewal of the passport, while retaining strict control over any foreign travel through conditions requiring prior permission and re-deposit of the passport. This, the Court held, adequately addressed the concern underlying Section 6(2)(f), namely, securing the presence of the accused.
The Bench further noted that “whether a person who is on bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal court” to decide, while stating that for the passport authority “to refuse renewal on the speculative apprehension that the appellant might misuse the passport is, in effect, to second-guess the criminal courts’ assessment of risk and to assume for the passport authority a supervisory role which the statute does not envisage”.
Rejecting the Calcutta High Court’s view, the Bench observed the High Court “treated Section 6(2)(f) as an absolute bar so long as any criminal proceeding is pending, without giving full effect to the statutory exemption mechanism under Section 22 and GSR 570(E), and without adequately appreciating that the criminal courts actually dealing with the appellant’s cases have consciously permitted renewal while retaining stringent control over any foreign travel”.
This, the Apex Court concluded, “in effect, converted a qualified restriction, designed to secure the presence of an accused, into a near-permanent disability to hold a valid passport, even where the criminal courts themselves do not consider such a disability necessary”.
Conclusion
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Court directed the passport authority to re-issue an ordinary passport to the appellant for the normal period of ten years, subject to compliance with procedural requirements and existing conditions imposed by the NIA Court and the Delhi High Court.
It was also made clear that the passport authority retained the power to impound or revoke the passport in accordance with law if circumstances so warranted.
Cause Title: Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1476)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocates Anup Kumar, AOR, Gauri Subramanium, Shruti Singh, Neha Jaiswal, Shivam Kumar, Abhisek Kumar, Vartika Vaishnavi
Respondents: Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, Advocates Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Chitrangda Rastravara, Gopi Chand, Ashok Kumar B, Arun Kumar Yadav, Raghav Sharma