Supreme Court Holds Passport Renewal Cannot Be Denied Due to Pendency of Criminal Proceedings When Trial Court Permits Renewal

  • Post category:Blog
  • Reading time:6 mins read

Supreme Court Holds Passport Renewal Cannot Be Denied Due to Pendency of Criminal Proceedings When Trial Court Permits Renewal: A Constitutional Reaffirmation of Travel Rights

Table of Contents

In a landmark judgment reinforcing personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has held that pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be used to impose an indefinite bar on passport renewal when competent criminal courts have expressly permitted such renewal while retaining control over foreign travel. The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih, in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr. [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1238], allowed the appeal and directed the Ministry of External Affairs and Regional Passport Office, Kolkata, to re-issue an ordinary passport for the normal period of ten years.​

Factual Matrix and Procedural History

The appellant, Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, a businessman facing proceedings under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in Ranchi, had his passport expired in August 2023. Both the NIA Court in Ranchi and the Delhi High Court (where his appeal against a CBI conviction in the coal block allocation scam is pending) had granted “no objection” for renewal, subject to stringent conditions: the appellant could not travel abroad without prior court permission, and the Ranchi court required the renewed passport to be re-deposited with it. Despite these judicial permissions, the Passport Authority refused renewal, citing Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which mandates refusal if criminal proceedings are pending. The Calcutta High Court upheld this refusal, interpreting that unless the criminal court’s order specified permission for a particular foreign trip, the statutory bar was absolute.​

Constitutional Framework: Article 21 as the Cornerstone

The Supreme Court emphatically restated that the right to travel abroad and hold a passport are facets of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Citing Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, the Court observed that any restriction on this right must be fair, just, and reasonable, bearing a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose. Justice Nath’s judgment stressed that “liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation”. The freedom to move, travel, and pursue livelihood constitutes an essential component of Article 21, and any restraint must be narrowly confined, proportionate, and clearly anchored in law.​

Statutory Interpretation: Section 6(2)(f) and GSR 570(E)

The Court undertook a meticulous analysis of the Passports Act, 1967. Section 6(2)(f) provides that passport authorities shall refuse issuance if proceedings in respect of an alleged offence are pending before a criminal court. However, the Court held this provision is not an absolute bar and must be read harmoniously with Section 22 of the Act and the exemption notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993.​

GSR 570(E) operates as a beneficial statutory mechanism that exempts applicants from Section 6(2)(f) when they produce orders from concerned courts permitting departure from India. The notification achieves two purposes: first, it recognizes that persons facing criminal proceedings are not absolutely disentitled to passports; second, it structures the exemption by tying passport validity to court orders. The Court clarified that the notification does not require criminal courts to convert every permission into a one-time license for a specific journey. Rather, courts may permit renewal while retaining complete control over each instance of foreign travel.​

Judicial Supervision and Proportionality Analysis

The Supreme Court found that both the NIA Court and Delhi High Court had consciously allowed renewal while imposing adequate safeguards. The underlying purpose of Section 6(2)(f)—ensuring the accused’s availability before the court—was fully served through conditions requiring prior permission for travel and re-deposit of the passport. To additionally deny renewal would constitute a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on liberty. The Court cautioned that refusing renewal on speculative apprehension of misuse effectively second-guesses criminal courts’ risk assessment and arrogates a supervisory role to passport authorities that the statute does not envisage.​

Distinction Between Passport Possession and Foreign Travel

A crucial aspect of the judgment is the distinction between holding a passport and actually traveling abroad. The Court emphasized that a passport is a civil document enabling its holder to seek visas and cross international borders, but whether a person on bail may leave the country remains within the criminal court’s exclusive jurisdiction. This bifurcation ensures that passport authorities focus on their statutory function without encroaching upon judicial domain.​

Key Observations and Principles

The judgment crystallizes several fundamental principles:

  • Liberty as Primary Obligation: The State’s first constitutional obligation is to protect liberty, not grant it as a concession.​
  • Qualified, Not Absolute Restrictions: Section 6(2)(f) creates a qualified restriction designed to secure the accused’s presence, not a permanent disability.​
  • Procedural Safeguards vs. Rigid Barriers: Procedural safeguards should not be converted into rigid barriers, and temporary disabilities must not harden into indefinite exclusions.​
  • Judicial Supremacy in Bail Matters: Criminal courts dealing with proceedings are best positioned to assess travel-related risks and impose appropriate conditions.​
  • Proportionality Doctrine: Any restriction must be narrowly confined to what is necessary and proportionate to the object sought.​

Significance and Implications

This ruling has far-reaching implications for thousands of individuals whose passport renewals are pending due to criminal proceedings. It clarifies that GSR 570(E) is not merely procedural but substantive, providing a meaningful exemption mechanism. The judgment also addresses the anomaly where High Courts had divergent interpretations, with some treating Section 6(2)(f) as an unyielding bar.​

For passport authorities, the decision mandates a shift from blanket refusals to nuanced assessments that respect judicial orders. The ruling reinforces that authorities cannot insist on travel itineraries or visa details at the renewal stage, focusing instead on ensuring the passport holder’s availability for legal proceedings.​

Conclusion

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal represents a significant reaffirmation of constitutional values in administrative decision-making. By harmoniously interpreting the Passports Act with Article 21, the Supreme Court has ensured that statutory restrictions on travel rights remain proportionate and purpose-driven. The judgment serves as a crucial reminder that in India’s constitutional scheme, liberty is the rule and restriction the exception—a principle that must guide not just passport authorities but all state functionaries exercising power over fundamental rights.

Tags: , , , ,