Passport Doesn't Give Automatic Right to Travel Abroad

Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, in Mohd. Aftab v. Union of India and Others (2026), held that a passport does not by itself guarantee unrestricted travel abroad for a person facing pending criminal cases, and clarified the respective roles of the passport authority and the courts in regulating such travel. 

What was the Background of Mohd. Aftab v. Union of India and Others (2026) Case? 

• The Petitioner's application for issuance of a passport was allegedly being withheld on account of the pendency of two criminal cases against him. 
• He approached the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction for issuance of the passport. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Passport Not Conferring an Automatic Right to Travel Abroad: 
  The Court observed that the mere grant of a passport does not by itself enable unrestricted passage across borders, since actual travel further requires visa applications to the host country and compliance with immigration procedures. 
• On the Power of Police/Prosecuting Agencies to Seek Surrender of Passport: 
  The Court held that if a passport holder facing criminal proceedings attempts to travel abroad, it remains open to the police or the prosecuting agency to move the appropriate court seeking a direction requiring surrender of the passport, so as to prevent the person from leaving Indian shores. 
• On the Stage at which Judicial Intervention Arises: 
  The Court clarified that judicial permission or restriction is not an automatic bar in every case — the court concerned may grant permission to travel subject to conditions, and such considerations arise only when the person actually endeavours to travel abroad, not at the stage of mere issuance of a passport. 
• On Pendency of a Criminal Case Not Being a Ground to Deny a Passport: 
  The Court held that a passport is essentially a civil document to which a citizen is entitled under law, and it is not ordinarily the business of the passport authorities to deny a passport merely because a criminal case is pending — unless the pendency of such a case has been suppressed in the application. 
• On Reliance on Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India: 
  Relying on this Supreme Court decision, the Court issued an ad interim mandamus directing the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, to consider the Petitioner's application for grant of a passport.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Related to Passport?  

About:  

• A passport is an official travel document issued by a government that certifies a person's identity and nationality for international travel.

The Passports Act, 1967:  

• The Passports Act is an act of the Parliament of India for the issue of passports and travel documents, to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and for other persons and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto.   
• The Act regulates the departure from India of citizens of India and for other persons and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto.  
• Section 6 of this Act lays down grounds for refusal of passports.

Types of Passports: 

Difference between Passport and Visa: