SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Raj) 723

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Sukhchain Singh S/o Hardev Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through The Regional Passport Officer Ministry Of External Affairs Regional Passport Office - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3121 of 2025
Decided On : 06-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.D. Goswami
For the Respondent: Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.

The right to hold a passport and travel abroad is an intrinsic facet of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; thus, pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be an absolute bar to passport renewal if reasonable conditions are met.

Headnote:(A) Passports Act, 1967 - Section 6(2)(f) - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Renewal of passport declined due to pendency of criminal proceedings - Right to hold a passport is an intrinsic facet of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 - Any restriction on the right to travel must be fair, just, and reasonable and bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose (Para 5).

(B) Notification dated 28.06.1993 - Exemption from the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act - Passport authority is enabled to issue a passport even in cases where criminal proceedings are pending, provided the applicant produces an order from the concerned court permitting them to depart from the country (Para 3).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the renewal of their passport. The passport authority declined the renewal request on the grounds that a final report in a criminal case filed against the petitioner was pending acceptance before the Trial Court.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the right to travel and hold a passport is a fundamental facet of personal liberty. The mere pendency of a criminal case, especially when a negative final report has been submitted, should not serve as an absolute impediment to the issuance of a passport, provided the risk of flight is mitigated by reasonable safeguards.

Issues: Whether the refusal to renew a passport based on the pendency of a final report in a criminal case constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the right to personal liberty.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to travel is an intrinsic part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Restrictions imposed under the Passports Act must be proportionate and not operate as an indefinite denial of liberty. Where the court can ensure the presence of the accused through the execution of personal and surety bonds, the pendency of proceedings is not a sufficient ground to refuse passport issuance.

Result: Petition allowed. Order of the passport authority quashed and set aside. Petitioner permitted to travel abroad for four months subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety bond.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • practice and procedure
    • writs
      • criminal writ petition (Para 1)
    • appeals
      • civil appeal (Para 5)
  • administrative law
    • passport law
      • renewal of passport (Para 2, 6)
      • refusal of passport (Para 3)
    • delegated legislation
      • government notification (Para 3)
  • constitutional law
    • fundamental rights
      • right to personal liberty (Para 5)
      • right to travel abroad (Para 5)
    • article 21 (Para 5)
  • crime and sentencing
    • offences involving property
      • extortion (Para 2)

Table of Contents

1. Passport renewal declined due to pendency of criminal proceeding — Writ under Section 528 BNSS. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Petitioner asserts right to passport despite criminal case; authority cites pending final report as impediment. (Para 2 )

3. Right to passport is intrinsic to Article 21; denial must be proportionate and based on fair procedure. (Para 5 )

4. Pendency of criminal proceedings alone does not justify passport refusal; conditions can safeguard court's jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 )

5. Order declining renewal quashed; passport to be issued subject to furnishing bond and four-month travel limit. (Para 6 , 7 )

6. Can passport renewal be denied solely because criminal proceedings are pending?

No, denial must be proportionate and reasonable; right to passport is part of Article 21 liberty. (Para 3 , 5 )

7. What conditions can a court impose when allowing passport renewal for an accused?

Court may require personal bond, surety, undertaking to return, and impose travel time limits. (Para 3 , 6 )

8. Does the Passports Act allow issuance of passport if court permission is granted?

Yes, Section 6(2)(f) exemption notification permits issuance upon court order; passport may be time-limited. (Para 3 )

9. Is the right to hold a passport a facet of personal liberty under Article 21?

Yes, the Supreme Court has held it is an intrinsic facet of personal liberty. (Para 5 )

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant Criminal Writ Petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved from the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Regional Passport Officer, Jaipur whereby the renewal of the passport of the petitioner has been declined.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued Passport No. N4444395 on 23.10.2015, valid up to 22.10.2025. An FIR No. 146/2021 under Sections 384 and 385 IPC was registered against the petitioner, however, after thorough investigation a negative final report was submitted on 25.05.2022 and is pending acceptance before the learned Trial Court. Upon applying for renewal of the passport, the respondent authority, by order dated 23.09.2025, raised an objection on the ground of pendency of the final report, thereby compelling the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition.

3. This Court has dealt with the similar issue in the case of Balkaran Singh v. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7824/2022] dated 21.11.2022. The relevant paragraphs of the order are being reproduced herein below:-

“It is significant to note here that the Passports Act, 1967 does not confer absolute power upon a citizen to obtain passport. Section 6(1) & (2) of the Act prescribe certain conditions/eventualities when the passport authority is required to turn down request to make an endorsement or issue passport which includes a condition when an applicant is an accused in a criminal case. Relevant extract of section 6(2) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:—

(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India;

(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;

(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;

(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;

(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;

(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;

(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;

(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.”

To diminish the rigour of sub-section (2)(f) of section 6, the Central Government has issued a notification dated 28.06.1993 which enables the passport authority to issue passport even in the case of a person covered by clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act. The notification dated 28.06.1993 is reproduced as under in its entirety:-

“GSR 570(E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. GSR 298(E) dated the 14" April 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary ni public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top