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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
Sakthivel Nadimuthu – Appellant
Versus
The Regional Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office, Municipal Complex, Thillai Nagar 7th Cross, Tiruchirappalli – Respondent
WP(MD)No.9791 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Balasubramanian
For the Respondents:Mr.S.Anbu Hariharar Central Government Standing counsel, Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate(Crl. side)

Mere FIR registration does not justify passport refusal; requires pending criminal court proceedings under Section 6, Passports Act.

Headnote:Passports Act, 1967, Section 6 empowers Passport Authority to refuse renewal only on specified grounds, including pending criminal proceedings before a competent court. Petitioner applied for passport renewal, held pending due to registered FIR in Crime No.114/2023 under Sections 294(b), 324, 448, 427, 506(ii) IPC. Court found mere FIR registration insufficient ground for refusal, as statutory bar requires pending court proceedings. Issues framed as whether withholding passport solely on FIR basis complies with Section 6. Court reasoned that refusal must align with enumerated grounds; FIR alone does not trigger bar under the Act. Writ petition allowed; respondent directed to process and issue passport within three weeks, subject to eligibility.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks mandamus for passport renewal. (Para 2)
2. fir alone insufficient for passport refusal under section 6. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. direct processing and issuance within three weeks. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to renew his passport based on his application in File No.TRI05344565820 dated 16.07.2025.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though he has submitted an application for renewal of his passport, the same has not been processed by the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the application has been kept pending on the ground that a criminal case has been registered against him. 3. Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent No.2, on instructions, submitted that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.114 of 2023 for the offence underSections 294(b), 324, 448, 427 and 506(ii) ofand the same is pending.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. The refusal to issue or renew a passport is governed by the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. Under Section 6 of the Act, the Passport Authority is empowered to refuse issuance or renewal of a passport only on the grounds specifically enumerated therein. One such ground is where proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a competent criminal court in India.

6. In the present case, the only reason cited by the 1st respondent is the registration of FIR against the petitioner. However, mere registration of FIR does not fall within the grounds contemplated under Section 6 of the Act. The statutory bar arises only when criminal proceedings are pending before a competent criminal court.

7. Therefore, the action of the first respondent in withholding the petitioner’s application solely on the basis of the registration of FIR is not in consonance with the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967.

8. In view of the above, this Court finds merit in the petitioner’s contention.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the first respondent is directed to process the petitioner’s application for renewal of passport in File No. in TRI05344565820 dated 16.07.2025 and issue the passport, subject to the petitioner satisfying all other eligibility criteria prescribed under law.

10. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top