Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15096 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 17769 of 2025]
Decided On : 19-12-2025
Applications for renewal or re-issue of an ordinary passport after expiry are governed by Section 5 of the Passports Act, requiring the passport authority to grant or refuse by written order after inquiry, subject to other provisions including refusal grounds under Section 6(2). (!) (!) (!)
Section 6(2)(f) mandates refusal if criminal proceedings are pending before a court in India, but this is subject to exemptions under Section 22. (!) (!) (!)
Under GSR 570(E) notified via Section 22, persons with pending proceedings are exempted from the Section 6(2)(f) bar upon obtaining court permission or no objection, provided they furnish an undertaking to appear before the court as required; passport validity is then tied to the court's specified period or defaults (e.g., 1 year if unspecified, renewable in limited cases). (!) (!)
The OM dated 10.10.2019 directs strict application of GSR 570(E), prioritizing court no-objection over adverse reports, and considering orders from multiple courts together; renewal/re-issue equates to fresh issuance under Sections 5-6. (!) (!)
Even without court-specified travel dates, renewal for the normal 10-year period (per Rule 12) is permissible if courts grant no objection for renewal while retaining control via conditions like prior travel permission and passport deposit, addressing Section 6(2)(f)'s purpose of ensuring amenability to justice. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Refusal despite such judicial permissions is unjustified, as it imposes disproportionate restrictions on Article 21 liberty; passport possession distinct from travel, latter regulated by courts under bail conditions or Section 10 (impound/revocation). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Post-renewal, ordinary 10-year passports remain subject to court orders and Section 10 powers for future impoundment if proceedings evolve or conditions breached. (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. liberty and the right to travel under article 21 (Para 2 , 21) |
| 2. statutory framework governing passport issuance and restrictions (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 16 , 18) |
| 3. judicial discretion in passport matters amid criminal proceedings (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. order for renewal of passport contingent on compliance (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
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, 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 but 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 are allowed to 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 writ petition filed by the appellant seeking a direction to the respondents, namely the Union of India through the Ministry of External Affairs and the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata (hereinafter “RPO Kolkata”) to renew his ordinary passport which had expired on 28.08.2023. The Division Bench upheld the legal 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 Agency1 [NIA] Ranchi, for appropriate directions.
4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
4.2. The appellant is an accused in a case investigated by the NIA, arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02 of 2016 dated 11.01.2016 in District Chatra, Jharkhand. The NIA re- registered the case as RC No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI on 16.02.2018, alleging extortion, levy collection and related activities in the coal mining areas of Amrapali and Magadh, including alleged funding of a proscribed organisation. The appellant has been arrayed as Accused No. 18 and stands charge sheeted, inter alia, under Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 18602 [IPC] read with Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 19673 [UA(P) Act] and for substantive offences under Sections 17 and 18 of the UA(P) Act, of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 19084 [CLA Act] and Section 201 IPC, before the Court of the Additional Judicial Commissioner XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi5 [NIA Court, Ranchi] in Special Case No. 03 of 2018.
4.3. Prior to the present proceedings, the appellant had challenged an order of cognizance passed by the NIA Court, Ranchi, by filing Criminal Appeal (Division Bench) No. 119 of 2020 before the High Court of Jharkhand. By an interim order dated 10.02.2020, the High Court directed that the appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and that he shall deposit his passport before the Trial Court. In compliance, the appellant’s passport was deposited before the NIA Court, Ranchi. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 119 of 2020 was subsequently dismissed on 11.01.2022 and the protection granted earlier was vacated. A Special Leave Petition (Criminal) filed by the appellant against the dismissal of the said a
The Supreme Court clarified that the right to renew a passport is not absolute when criminal proceedings are pending, as long as judicial permissions are in place to regulate travel, ensuring the bal....
The court clarified that individuals facing criminal proceedings can obtain passport renewals based on trial court permits, without needing a separate order to depart from India, affirming the limita....
Pendency of criminal proceedings bars the re-issuance of a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967; exceptions are subject to specific court orders.
Pending criminal proceedings do not bar passport renewal; authorities to process per Act, rules, notifications without routine court NOC; ordinarily 10-year validity; travel permission separate from ....
The denial of passport renewal due to pending criminal proceedings is justified under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, applicable to all forms of passport issuance.
Ongoing criminal proceedings can bar regular passport issuance under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, while allowing for a short validity passport contingent on court approval.
Pending criminal proceedings can bar the renewal of a passport under the Passports Act, necessitating compliance with statutory provisions and court permissions for validity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
