Passport Renewal & Pendency of Criminal Case

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Augustine George Masih in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Another (2025) allowed an appeal and directed passport renewal, holding that pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be used to impose an indefinite bar on passport renewal when competent criminal courts have permitted such renewal. 

What was the Background of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Another (2025) Case? 

• The appeal was filed by businessman Mahesh Kumar Agarwal challenging the denial of his passport renewal. 
• The appellant's passport had expired in August 2023. 
• Both the NIA Court in Ranchi and the Delhi High Court (where his appeal against a CBI conviction was pending) had granted "no objection" for renewal. 
• The criminal courts imposed strict conditions: the appellant could not travel abroad without prior court permission, and the Ranchi court ordered the renewed passport to be re-deposited with it. 
• Despite these judicial permissions, the Passport Authority refused renewal, citing the embargo under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. 
• Section 6(2)(f) mandates refusal of passport if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant. 
• The Calcutta High Court upheld this refusal, interpreting the law to mean that unless the criminal court's order specified permission for a particular foreign trip, the bar was absolute. 
• The appellant argued that the criminal courts had consciously permitted renewal while retaining control over any foreign travel.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act is not an absolute bar and must be read along with Section 22 and the exemption notification GSR 570(E). 
• The bench observed that both the Passport Authority and the Calcutta High Court treated Section 6(2)(f) as an absolute bar without giving full effect to the statutory exemption mechanism. 
• The Court found that they converted a qualified restriction into a near-permanent disability to hold a valid passport, even where criminal courts did not consider such disability necessary. 
• Justice Vikram Nath underscored that liberty under Article 21 is not a gift of the State but its first obligation, stating "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." 
• The Court emphasized that any restraint must be narrowly confined, proportionate and clearly anchored in law. 
• The Court cautioned that procedural safeguards should not be converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities allowed to harden into indefinite exclusions. 
• The Court held that the legitimate purpose behind Section 6(2)(f) is to ensure that a person facing criminal proceedings remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court. 
• The bench observed that this purpose was fully served by the conditions imposed by the NIA Court and Delhi High Court requiring prior permission before foreign travel. 
• The Court noted that to add an indefinite denial of renewed passport when both criminal courts had consciously permitted renewal would be a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on the appellant's liberty. 
• The Court stated that refusing renewal on speculative apprehension that the appellant might misuse the passport would be second-guessing the criminal courts' assessment of risk. 
• The Court directed the Ministry of External Affairs and the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata, to reissue the appellant's ordinary passport for the normal period of ten years. 

What is The Passports Act, 1967? 

• The Object of this Act is to provide for issue of passports and travel documents. 
• 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 the Passports Act, 1967 lays down grounds for refusal of passports.

What is the Law Regarding Renewal of Passport During Pendency of Criminal Proceedings?  

• Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020): 
  • The Supreme Court held that refusal of a passport can only be in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately proceeding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. (Section 6(2)(e) of Passports Act,1967). 
  • The renewal of passport cannot be refused on the ground that a criminal proceeding is pending against the accused. 
• Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India and Another (2023): 
  • The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. 
  • Therefore, the pendency of a case is not a ground to refuse, renew or to demand the surrender of a passport.