Back
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
The High Court held that the restrictions applicable to the issuance of a passport under the Passports Act, 1967, including those under Section 6(2)(f) for pending criminal proceedings, equally govern renewal after expiry of the passport's term, treating renewal as akin to re-issuance under Section 5. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Key Statutory Interpretation: - Section 5 empowers the passport authority to issue passports or travel documents after inquiry, subject to other provisions like Section 6, which mandates refusal if proceedings for an offence are pending before a criminal court. (!) (!) (!) - Section 7 prescribes the default validity period (e.g., 10 years under Rule 12), but allows shorter periods for reasons recorded in writing. (!) (!) - Section 8 permits extension only for short-term passports issued under Section 7, up to the prescribed period, and explicitly applies issuance provisions (including Section 6) to such extensions. (!) (!) (!) - Section 9 regulates conditions and forms for issuance or renewal as prescribed, but does not confer independent renewal power. (!) (!) - Absent a specific renewal provision post-full-term expiry, authority derives renewal power from Section 5 (as re-issuance), subjecting it to Section 6 restrictions; Rules cannot expand statutory powers. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Application to Pending Criminal Cases: - Renewal cannot be granted for the default 10-year period if criminal proceedings are pending, even with court permissions limited to renewal process or conditional travel; absence of broad no-objection for travel invokes the Section 6(2)(f) bar. (!) (!) (!) - Post-expiry, no subsisting passport exists to impound/revoke under Section 10, reinforcing re-application of issuance rigours. (!) (!) (!)
Outcome: Petition for 10-year renewal dismissed due to pending proceedings without requisite permissions. (!)
JUDGMENT :
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The issue which has fallen for consideration is whether the rigours applicable to issuance of a passport for the first time apply to renewal of passport after the expiry of the term for which it was initially granted.
3. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to maximum imprisonment of four years under Sections 120B, 420, 471, 411 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on April 25, 2022 by a Delhi court. An appeal is pending against the same before the High Court at Delhi. By an order dated September 4, 2023, a Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court granted no objection/permission for renewal of the petitioner’s passport for a period of ten years upon considering that the order suspending the sentence of the petitioner noted that the petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the Court.
4. On the other hand, in a different pending criminal proceeding before the Additional Judicial Commissioner XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, the said court by an order dated July 10, 2023 directed the passport of the petitioner to be handed over to the petitioner for the limited purpos
Pending criminal proceedings can bar the renewal of a passport under the Passports Act, necessitating compliance with statutory provisions and court permissions for validity.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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....
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.
Pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically bar passport renewal; restrictions on rights must be just and legal, emphasizing individual liberty under Article 21.
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
