Mere Pendency of Criminal Case Without Cognizance No Bar to Passport Issuance: Andhra Pradesh High Court - 2026-06-04

Passport Rights Secured: Court Clarifies Limits on Denying Travel Documents

Travel is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty, and for many, a passport is the key to unlocking that freedom. In a significant ruling that provides clarity on the administrative hurdles faced by applicants, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has reaffirmed that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify an individual from obtaining a passport.

The case of Attaru Ram Mohan Rao vs. Union of India centered on the intersection of administrative procedure and Constitutional rights, establishing that only the formal "taking of cognizance" by a criminal court serves as a valid legal ground for refusal.

The Background: When Verification Meets Obstruction

The petitioner, Attaru Ram Mohan Rao, applied for a passport, only to be met with a shortfall notice. Authorities cited an adverse police verification report linked to a criminal case (Crime No. 575 of 2025) at the Patamata Police Station. The core of the state's objection was the existence of this ongoing investigation.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that until a court formally recognizes the charges and initiates judicial proceedings, the applicant retains their full rights as a citizen. The central question before the Court was: Does a criminal investigation, in the absence of judicial cognizance, fall under the ambit of the "pending proceedings" clause in the Passports Act, 1967 ?

The Legal Framework: Defining "Pending Proceedings"

Section 6 (2)(f) of the Passports Act allows the state to refuse a passport if proceedings in respect of an offense are "pending before a criminal court in India."

In his analysis, Justice Subba Reddy Satti looked to the established precedent of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 383 of 2024 . The Court clarified that "pending" implies that a Magistrate has reviewed the charge sheet and formally taken judicial notice of the matter. Without this step, the administrative authorities cannot unilaterally extend the definition of "pending" to include the investigation phase conducted by police.

Key Observations: Presumption of Innocence

The Court’s ruling underscored the sanctity of individual liberty. The following observations define the legal reasoning:

• On Judicial Cognizance: “Since there was no cognizance taken, there would be no question of ‘proceedings pending before a criminal Court,’ which would attract the provisions of Section 6 (2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 .”
• On Fundamental Rights: “The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumit Mehta vs. State of NCT of Delhi held that the law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights, including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India .”
• On the Right to Travel: “The Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India held that the right to travel abroad is a part of personal liberty.”

Implications and Final Decision

The High Court directed the passport authorities to process the petitioner's application immediately, ignoring the pending crime report, as the jurisdictional court had not yet taken cognizance.

This decision acts as a necessary safeguard against the overreach of administrative bodies. It reinforces the principle that procedural delays in police filings or investigation should not be weaponized to restrict a citizen’s fundamental right to movement. Moving forward, authorities must stick to the strict letter of the Passports Act , ensuring that passports are denied only through clear, court-sanctioned judicial milestones rather than mere accusations.