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) 38097

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
P.Mahesh – Appellant
Versus
Passport Officer, Regional Passport Office – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Atham Ali
For the Respondents:Mr.B.Narayan Ram Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.side)

Mere FIR registration does not bar passport issuance under Section 6 of Passports Act; requires pending court proceedings.

Headnote:The court analyzed provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, particularly Section 6, which permits refusal of passport issuance only on enumerated grounds, including pending criminal proceedings before a court. Petitioner applied for a fresh passport, but the authority withheld processing due to registered FIRs in criminal cases Cr.Nos.42, 156, and 177 of 2025. The court found that mere FIR registration does not constitute pending proceedings before a criminal court, rendering the refusal unlawful. The key issue was whether FIR registration alone justifies passport refusal under Section 6. The court reasoned that the statutory bar applies only to proceedings pending before a competent criminal court, not mere police investigations post-FIR, distinguishing administrative withholding from legal grounds. The writ petition was allowed, directing the passport authority to process and issue the passport within four weeks, subject to other eligibility criteria.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks mandamus for passport issuance despite pending firs. (Para 1 , 2)
2. criminal cases registered; materials reviewed. (Para 3 , 4)
3. fir registration insufficient for passport refusal under s.6. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. writ allowed; process passport within four weeks. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue the passport based upon his application in File No. 26-1056737660 dated 13.04.2026. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though an application has been submitted for issuance of a fresh 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 second respondent, on instructions, submitted that criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner in Cr.Nos.42, 156 and 177 of 2025.

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 in the circumstances 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 criminal court in India.

6. In the present case, the only reason cited by the first respondents is the registration of FIRs against the petitioner. However, mere registration of an 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 FIRs 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 issuance of a fresh passport bearing File No. 26-1056737660 dated 13.04.2026 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 four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

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