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) 44404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hemant Chandangoudar, J
Mueenuddin Khwaja – Appellant
Versus
Passport Officer – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.13090 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.M.Karunakaran
For the Respondents: S.M.Ashok, M.Vaikkam Karunanithi

Mere registration of an FIR does not constitute 'pending criminal proceedings' under Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967; thus, it is not a valid ground for a Passport Authority to refuse the issuance or renewal of a passport.

Headnote:This petition involves the interpretation of the Passports Act, 1967, specifically regarding criteria for refusing passport issuance. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to compel officials to process a passport application, which had been withheld solely due to the registration of an FIR, despite no criminal proceedings currently pending before a court. The court determined that the mere registration of an FIR does not constitute a valid legal ground under the Act for withholding passport issuance. The core issue was whether the mere existence of an FIR qualifies as a ground for refusing a passport under the Passports Act, 1967. The court identified that the statute allows for refusal only when proceedings are actively pending before a competent criminal court, emphasizing that administrative action must strictly align with the enumerated statutory limitations. The court directed the first respondent to process and issue the passport within four weeks, provided other eligibility criteria are met.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts regarding passport application denial due to fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. interpretation of section 6 of passports act regarding firs. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court order directing passport issuance. (Para 8)

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction to the first respondent to issue passport pursuant to the application in File No.

No.TR2066606411426 dated 26.03.2026.

2. The application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of passport has not been processed citing a criminal case was registered in Crime No.102 of 2026.

3. Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent No.2, on receiving instructions, submitted that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner.

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 respondents 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. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to process the petitioner’s application for renewal of passport in File No.TR2066606411426 dated 26.03.2026 and issue the passport, subject to the petitioner satisfying all other eligibility criteria prescribed under law.

9. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four(4)

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10.There shall be no order as to 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