Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, JJ
Sagar Pradeep Oak – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. travel freedom integral to article 21 liberty. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. pending cases threaten livelihood via passport denial. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. passport refusal grounds strictly limited by act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. notification dilutes s6(2)(f) bar with undertakings. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. precedents favor renewal despite pending proceedings. (Para 22) |
| 6. s6(2)(f) ensures trial presence, not absolute bar. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. passport authority holds exclusive issuance power. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. court noc administrative, not judicial mandate. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 9. renewal distinct from travel permission. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 10. renew passports per rules unless court restricts. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT:- [Per : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J]
1) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Anr reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887 has observed that:-
“2. Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law,
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
