Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 34601
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J
SRI. PRAHLADA MADHAVA RAO – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP No. 20249 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chandrashekara K
For the Respondents: Reshma Thammaiah, Mohammed Jafar Shah
The fundamental right to travel under Article 21 cannot be denied by refusing passport renewal solely due to pending criminal proceedings; travel permission is required at the time of actual travel, not as a prerequisite for the renewal of the passport document.
Headnote:The petitioner sought the renewal of a passport under the Constitution of India, specifically invoking Articles 226 and 227. The respondent authority had issued an endorsement requiring the petitioner to produce orders from criminal courts in pending cases (Spl.C.C.No.2686/2023 and Spl.C.C.No.769/2024) permitting travel as a condition for renewal. The court found that the requirement of travel permission for the mere act of passport renewal was an improper restriction. The central issue was whether the production of a court order permitting travel is a necessary condition for the renewal of a passport when criminal proceedings are pending. The court reasoned that the fundamental right to travel enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be defeated solely on the ground of pending criminal proceedings. It further observed that the interests of the state can be safeguarded by issuing a Short Validity Passport and ensuring that immigration authorities verify travel permissions at the time of actual departure. Writ Petition is allowed
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the denial of passport renewal based on pending criminal court proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the right to travel under article 21 outweighs the requirement of travel permission for document renewal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. quashing of the restrictive endorsement and direction to renew the passport subject to travel permissions at immigration. (Para 7) |
WRIT PETITION NO. 20249 OF 2026 (GM-PASS)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AN 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 25-06-2026 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. Smt.Reshma Thammaiah, learned ASG accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 3. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.2.
2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the endorsement dated 25.06.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-C.
ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd Respondent to consider the reissue / renew the petitioner's passport bearing No.Z3567752 in accordance with law without insisting upon production of any order from the criminal court vide Annexure-A, in the interest of justice and equity.
iii) To grant such other reliefs as deemed fit, in the interest of justice."
3. The petitioner having been issued a Passport, which is valid until 20.04.2026 had sought for renewal thereof. On processing the said application on 25.06.2026, the petitioner was called upon to furnish Court orders with respect to Spl.C.C.No.2686/2023 and Spl. C.C.No.769/2024, permitting the petitioner to travel. It is the said endorsement, which is under challenge before this Court and in respect of the said endorsement the aforesaid reliefs have been sought for.
4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that for renewal of a Passport there would be no requirement for permission to travel to be accompanied by it. The permission to travel would only be required when the petitioner actually travels and therefore his submission is that the respondent ought to have renewed the Passport.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner deserves consideration inasmuch as the fundamental right of the petitioner to travel enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be defeated only on the ground that there is a criminal proceedings, which are pending against the petitioner.
6. Insofar as the interests of the respondents are concerned, the same can be safeguarded by directing them to issue a Short Validity Passport and since a Short Validity Passport is issued, the Immigration Authorities would be on notice to seek for the orders permitting the petitioner to travel by the Court seized of the aforesaid matters, if at all the petitioner were to embark on any such travel outside the country.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the following order:
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is allowed
ii) A Certiorari is issued. The Endorsement dated 25.06.2026 at Annexure-C, issued by respondent No.3 is quashed.
iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to re-issue and renew the petitioner's Passport, without insisting upon the production of any order from the Criminal Court seized of Spl.C.C.No.2686/2023 and Spl. C.C.No.769/2024, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv) It is however, made clear that the travel of the petitioner will however be subject to permission to travel abroad being granted in Spl.C.C.No.2686/2023 and Spl. C.C.No.769/2024, which shall be produced by the petitioner before the Immigration Authorities at the time of his travel.
