Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
Sakkeer Hussain, S/O. Hussain – Appellant
versus
Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary To Government, Ministry Of External Affairs,
WP(C) NO. 17568 OF 2026
Decided on : 26-05-2026
For the Appellant : SRI. RAHUL KRISHNAN U.S. SRI. KIRAN KRISHNA SRI. SIDDIQUE SULAIMAN
For the Respondent: SHRI.S.PRASANTH - SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
A court may direct the issuance of a short-validity passport to an Indian citizen accused in a criminal case residing abroad, even in the absence of prior court permission, to enable the individual's return to India to face pending legal proceedings.
Headnote:The case concerns the interpretation of G.S.R. 570(E) issued under the Passports Act, 1967, which restricts the issuance or renewal of passports to individuals facing pending criminal proceedings unless they obtain specific permission from the trial court. The facts involve a petitioner residing abroad who is unable to return to India to defend a pending criminal case or obtain court-ordered travel permission due to his expired passport. The court determined that in these circumstances, to ensure the applicant can return to face justice, a short-validity passport may be issued. The main issue is whether a passport authority is compelled to deny passport re-issuance to an accused party despite the lack of a specific court order, and whether the court can issue directives to facilitate the entry of an accused individual into the country to face justice. The ratio decidendi holds that while statutory notifications require court permission for travel, the court may exercise its discretion to issue a short-term passport to enable the applicant to return to the jurisdiction where the criminal case is pending, provided the applicant remains subject to trial court conditions once present. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the passport authority to issue a short-validity passport for one year to facilitate the petitioner's travel to India, subject to obtaining necessary permissions from the criminal court upon arrival.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner cannot travel to india to face criminal charges due to expired passport. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court may issue short-validity passports to accused persons to facilitate their return to the country for legal proceedings. (Para 3 , 5) |
JUDGMENT :
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
1. The petitioner is the holder of an Indian passport bearing No.N4127964 and is presently working in Saudi Arabia. The passport of the petitioner expired on 20.10.2025 and he applied for re-issuance of the passport evidenced by Ext.P3. By Ext.P5, the petitioner was informed that the passport cannot be renewed due to pendency of a criminal case against him. The petitioner submits that he is an accused in C.C No.470 of 2023 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Kottarakara. The said court has issued a Non Bailable Warrant against the petitioner. Since the passport of the petitioner is not renewed, he is not in a position to come to India and to defend the case. He also states that the validity of his resident identity card will expire shortly. Accordingly, he has filed this writ petition for a direction to the 2nd respondent to process his application for re-issuance of passport for a period of five years without being hindered by the fact that a criminal case is pending against him.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, paragraphs 3 and 4 of which read as follows:-
“3. It is further submitted that as per G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, where criminal proceedings are pending against an applicant, issuance or reissue of passport can be considered only on the basis of orders obtained from the competent criminal court permitting the applicant to travel abroad or directing issuance of passport. In such circumstances, only a Short Validity Passport can be issued subject to the conditions imposed by the concerned court. In the present case, the petitioner has not produced any such order before the Passport Authority.
4. Therefore, in the absence of orders from the competent criminal court and in view of the adverse police verification report, the Passport Authority is legally constrained from processing the petitioner’s application favourably. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent court for appropriate orders and thereafter approach the Passport Issuing Authority for further action in accordance with law.”
3. Heard Sri.Rahul Krishnan U.S, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.Prasanth, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.
4. The 1st respondent has issued G.S.R.570(E) under Section 21 of the Passports Act, 1967 permitting the issuance of passport to the persons who are accused in criminal cases, subject to the condition that permission of the Criminal Court must be obtained and the passport shall be reissued only for the period for which such permission is granted by the Criminal Court. Since the petitioner’s passport has already expired, he is not in a position either to come to India and defend the case or to obtain orders from the competent criminal court permitting him to travel abroad or directing issuance of passport.
5. In the said circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to process the application of petitioner evidenced by Ext.P3 for re-issuance of passport and issue a short validity passport for a period of one year to enable him to travel to India. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, to travel abroad on arrival in India, he shall obtain the permission of the criminal court where the case is pending.
The writ petition is disposed of.
