The right to travel must balance with judicial processes, ensuring fair treatment in passport issuance amidst pending criminal cases.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“directing the 1st respondent to process and issue passport to the petitioner in respect of Passport Application File No. MA2075867492825 within a time frame by considering the petitioners explanation dated

05.01.2026.”

2. The petitioner had filed an application on 01.11.2025 for the issuance of a passport. Subsequently, pursuant to an adverse police verification report, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice dated 22.11.2025, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation regarding the adverse report. On 05.01.2026, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation along with relevant documents, including a certified copy of the bail order. As there was no progress after the submission of the explanation, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to process his application.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents

2 and 3 would submit that a case in C.C. No. 3024 of 2025 is pending against the petitioner before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, and the matter is presently at the trial stage.

4. Heard the rival submissions of the counsels and this Court also perused the records.

5. The reason for not issuing the passport is attributed to the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India and another arising out of SLP(C) No.17769 of 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a similar case of passport which was not being granted on account of the fact that the appellant therein was an accused in a case being investigated by NIA. The learned Judges after taking into consideration the statutory provisions and notifications relating to the issue on hand and after extracting the Passport Act and Rules of the G.O., has observed as follows :

“8. From a conjoint reading of Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Passports Act, a structured scheme emerges. Section 5 is the starting point. It prescribes the manner in which an application for a passport is to be made and requires the passport authority, subject to the other provisions of the Act, to decide the application by issuing or refusing the passport through a written order. Section 6 qualifies that power and sets out, in an exhaustive manner, the grounds on which the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document. Sub-section (1) deals with refusal of endorsements for particular countries. Sub-section (2) governs refusal of issue itself and again begins with the words “subject to the other provisions of this Act”. It obliges the authority to refuse issue where any of the situations in clauses (a) to (i) are present, including the pendency of criminal proceedings before a court in India under clause (f). Section 7 then addresses the duration of a passport. It provides that a passport shall continue in force for such period as may be prescribed, but also permits the authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing to the applicant, to issue a passport for a shorter period in an appropriate case. Section 8 deals with the converse situation where a passport has already been issued for a shorter period. It permits extension of such a passport, but expressly states that the provisions of the Act shall apply to such extension as they apply to the issue of the passport, thereby linking an extension back to the same statutory conditions and limitations that govern original issue under Sections 5 and 6.

9. Sections 9, 10 and 22 reinforce and complete this framework.