Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.SREENIVASA REDDY
Kantamneni Srinivasa Rao, S/O Koteswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented By Its Secretary (Ministry Of External Affairs) New Delhi – Respondent
ORDER :
K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
1. This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents particularly, 2nd respondent renewed the petitioner’s Passport vide Passport No:M1796691 for a period of One year i.e. from 31.07.2025 to 30.07.2026 in connection with renewal of Passport application as per the Orders of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tirupati in Crl.M.P.No.1286 of 2025 in C.C.No.288 of 2024, dated 03.07.2025 instead of renewal of Passport as prescribed for 5/10 years as per the Amended PASSPORT ACT , even though there is no specific period was fixed by the Court in Crl.M.P.No.1286 of 2025, as illegal, unlawful, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Hon’ble Apex Court rulings, violation of 2nd respondent Passport Authority to renew the petitioner’s Passport No.M1796691 for a period of Ten years as per the prescribed period and as the Amended PASSPORT ACT and pass such other order or orders …”
2. Contents of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner, in brief, are that the Writ Petitioner is a businessm
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically bar passport renewal; restrictions on rights must be just and legal, emphasizing individual liberty under Article 21.
The pendency of a criminal case does not justify the refusal of passport services, as individuals retain their right to travel freely, protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
The court ruled that the renewal of a passport cannot be denied solely due to pending criminal proceedings, especially when such proceedings are stayed and no restraint is imposed by the trial court.
The denial of a passport renewal based solely on a pending criminal case violates the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution.
Mere pendency of a criminal case against an applicant cannot justify refusal to renew a passport; the presumption of innocence must be upheld.
The right to hold a passport is integral to personal liberty; arbitrary restrictions due to ongoing criminal proceedings, without conviction, are unreasonable.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, and passport renewal cannot be denied solely based on pending criminal cases without proper legal justification.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a passport can be issued or renewed in the context of a pending criminal case only on the basis of production of orders from the concerned Cou....
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
