Passport Renewal for Accused in Pending Criminal Case: Apex Court Ordered

SC Directs Passport Reissue for 10 Years, Holds Judicial Permission for Travel Sufficient to Override Statutory Bar Under the Passports Act

Note: Summary of the Original Judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. _ of 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 17769 of 2025)

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal … Appellant(s)
Versus
Union of India & Anr. … Respondent(s)

Citation: 2025 INSC 1476

JUDGMENT

Vikram Nath, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. 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, and to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State may, where statute so provides, regulate or restrain that freedom in the interests of justice, security, or public order. However, such restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law. When procedural safeguards are converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities 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.
3. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in APOT No. 215 of 2024, affirming the judgment and order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPO No. 352 of 2024. By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents—the Union of India through the Ministry of External Affairs and the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata (“RPO, Kolkata”)—to renew his ordinary passport which had expired on 28.08.2023. The Division Bench upheld the reasoning of the learned Single Judge but left it open to the appellant to approach the High Court of Delhi and the Court of the Additional Judicial Commissioner XVI-cum-Special Judge, National Investigation Agency (NIA), Ranchi, for appropriate directions.
4. The material facts are as follows:

4.1 The appellant, an Indian citizen, was issued an ordinary passport (No. Z2611895) on 29.08.2013, valid until 28.08.2023.
4.2 The appellant is an accused in an NIA case (RC No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI) registered for offences including under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, pending before the NIA Court, Ranchi, in Special Case No. 03 of 2018.
4.3 In prior proceedings, the High Court of Jharkhand had directed the appellant not to leave India and to deposit his passport with the Trial Court. This order was vacated upon dismissal of his appeal.
4.4 The appellant was arrested and later released on bail by the NIA Court, Ranchi, on 12.04.2022, with a condition to deposit his passport, which was already in court custody.
4.5 Separately, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in a CBI coal block matter by a Delhi court on 21.04.2022. His sentence was suspended by the Delhi High Court on 23.05.2022, subject to conditions, including that he shall not leave the country without the Court’s permission.
4.6 As his passport neared expiry, the appellant sought “no objection” for its renewal from both the NIA Court, Ranchi, and the Delhi High Court.
4.7 The NIA Court, Ranchi, by order dated 10.07.2023, permitted the release of his passport for the limited purpose of renewal, upon furnishing an indemnity bond and an undertaking that he would not obtain any visa or travel abroad without the Court’s permission and would re-deposit the renewed passport immediately.
4.8 The Delhi High Court, by order dated 04.09.2023, granted “no objection” for renewal of the passport for a period of ten years, while maintaining the condition that the appellant shall not leave India without its permission.
4.9 The appellant applied for re-issue of his passport before the RPO, Kolkata, on 22.09.2023, disclosing all pending proceedings and court orders.
4.10 The Passport Authority declined to renew the passport for ten years, citing the bar under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, and took the view that the court orders did not grant specific permission to travel abroad.
4.11 The appellant’s writ petition before the Calcutta High Court was dismissed, holding that the statutory embargo under Section 6(2)(f) applied, as the criminal courts had not granted permission to depart from India. The Division Bench affirmed this view.

5. Aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court.
6. We have heard learned senior counsel Mr. Gopal Subramanium for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati for the respondents. The core issue is whether, in light of the Passports Act, the Passport Rules, 1980, notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 (issued under Section 22 of the Passports Act), and the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, the respondents were justified in refusing to re-issue the appellant’s passport for ten years despite the “no objection” granted by the Delhi High Court and the NIA Court, Ranchi.

Relevant Statutory Framework

7. The Passports Act, 1967 provides a structured scheme:

7.1 Section 5 governs applications for passports and mandates a written order granting or refusing issuance.
7.2 Section 6(2) exhaustively lists grounds for refusal of a passport. Clause (f) obliges refusal if “proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.”
7.3 Sections 7 & 8 deal with the duration of passports and their extension, linking extensions to the same conditions governing original issuance.
7.4 Section 9 permits prescription of conditions for issuance or renewal.
7.5 Section 10 empowers impounding or revocation of a passport in specified situations, including pending criminal proceedings [Section 10(3)(e)].
7.6 Section 22 empowers the Central Government to grant exemptions from the Act’s provisions.

8. In exercise of power under Section 22, the Central Government issued notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, exempting citizens facing criminal proceedings from the bar of Section 6(2)(f), subject to conditions. The notification provides, inter alia, that:

(a) A passport may be issued for the period specified by the court, or for one year if no period is specified.
(b) The passport may be renewed further based on fresh court orders.
(c) The citizen must give an undertaking to appear before the court as required.

9. The Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 reiterates the strict application of G.S.R. 570(E) and clarifies that a “no objection” from a criminal court may override an adverse police report.

Analysis and Findings

10. The High Court proceeded on the basis that Section 6(2)(f) imposes an absolute bar so long as criminal proceedings are pending, unless the court simultaneously authorizes a specific foreign trip for a defined period. This reading unduly narrows the exemption under G.S.R. 570(E).
11. The notification does not require the criminal court to authorize a concrete journey. It recognizes that where the court permits issuance or renewal while retaining control over travel—such as by requiring prior permission for each departure—the concern underlying Section 6(2)(f) (i.e., securing the accused’s presence) is adequately addressed. Both the NIA Court and the Delhi High Court adopted precisely this approach: they allowed renewal while imposing stringent conditions, including prior permission for any travel and re-deposit of the passport.
12. The Passport Authority and the High Court erred in treating the absence of a specific “permission to depart” as a jurisdictional bar. When read together, the orders of the NIA Court and the Delhi High Court clearly bring the appellant within the exempted class under G.S.R. 570(E). The Delhi High Court expressly authorized renewal for ten years. The NIA Court, aware of the pending proceedings, permitted renewal while retaining full control. This satisfies the statutory scheme.
13. The High Court’s characterization of the subsisting conviction in the Delhi case as reinforcing the bar under Section 6(2)(f) is also misplaced. Section 6(2)(f) applies to pending proceedings; a conviction falls, if at all, under Section 6(2)(e), which has different thresholds. In any event, the Delhi High Court, fully aware of the conviction, granted “no objection” for renewal.
14. The right to travel abroad and to hold a passport is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21. Restrictions must be fair, just, and reasonable. The legitimate purpose of Section 6(2)(f) is to ensure an accused’s presence before the court. That purpose is fully served by the conditions imposed by the criminal courts. Denying renewal altogether when both courts have consciously permitted it would be a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction.
15. The Passport Authority’s role is not to second-guess the criminal courts’ assessment of risk. Where the courts have permitted renewal while retaining supervisory control, the Authority must give effect to that judicial determination within the framework of G.S.R. 570(E).

Conclusion

16. For the above reasons, the judgments of the Calcutta High Court are unsustainable. The appeal is allowed.
17. 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, subject to compliance with usual procedural requirements, within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before the RPO, Kolkata. The passport shall remain subject to all existing and future orders of the NIA Court, Ranchi, and the Delhi High Court, including the conditions that the appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of the concerned court and shall deposit the passport as directed.
18. Nothing in this judgment curtails the powers of the Passport Authority under Section 10 of the Passports Act or the powers of the criminal courts to modify conditions as warranted.
19. All pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

……………………………….J.
[Vikram Nath]

……………………………….J.
[Augustine George Masih]

New Delhi
December 19, 2025