The mere pendency of a criminal case does not act as an automatic or absolute bar to the issuance of a passport under the Passports Act, 1967, as the right to travel is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

Heard Sri Chaitanya Palisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The writ petition is moved by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the petitioner’s application vide application No.HY3066284971626, for issuing fresh passport, being illegal, violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. The facts, which are stemmed from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are as follows:

(a) Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record that the petitioner applied for passport vide application No. HY3066284971626 dated 09.01.2026 and appeared before the passport authorities. Along with the application, all the required documents were submitted and the original documents were verified by the interviewing officer and in spite of the said compliance, the passport is not issued.

(b) On 17.03.2026, the petitioner received an objection letter from the 3rd respondent addressing that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner in the Court and sought clarification and to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the competent Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a criminal case is pending on the file the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, under Sections 420, 409 r/w 109 I.P.C in C.C.No.665 of 2023, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. Learned counsel would submit that the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent in processing the application for issuance of the passport is nothing but depriving from the right accrued to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is no more res integra and the Hon’ble Apex Court time and again under scored that Right to Travel also embedded in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel would submit that mere pendency of the criminal case cannot be treated as an absolute bar for issuance of the passport and in the present case, the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the case and in view of the said fact, the 3rd respondent cannot deny issuance of passport to the petitioner.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam and others, AIR 1967 SC 1836wherein it is held that the Right to Travel is indeed a fundamental right and the same cannot be arbitrarily and illegally denied by the State and that no person can be deprived of his Right to Travel except according to procedure established by law.

7. In Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 (15) SCC 570, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.13 observed as follows:

"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."

8. In Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and others, MANU/SC/0826/2019, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.5 observed as follows:

"The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is