Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Parvin Juneja VS Directorate of Enforcement - Crimes
"] ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4012"] ["2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1611"].Exceptions and Special Cases: In certain instances, the Court has directed the issuance of passports for specific durations or for purposes like revalidation of Green Cards, considering the peculiar circumstances of each case ["2025 0 Supreme(All) 2239"] ["2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1105"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
Traveling abroad is a cherished freedom, but what happens when criminal proceedings cast a shadow over your passport? Many individuals facing pending cases wonder: What are the guidelines on returning passports and granting permission to travel? This question arises frequently under the , where restrictions can feel arbitrary. In this post, we explore the legal framework, key judicial pronouncements, and practical steps to navigate these rules. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The safeguards the right to travel abroad as part of under Article 21. The has repeatedly affirmed this, stating that the right to travel abroad is a under 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 99. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to , particularly in cases involving .
Under the , allows refusal of passport issuance or renewal if criminal proceedings are pending. Yet, the Court has clarified that mere pendency does not justify blanket denial. A pivotal government notification dated (also referenced as in some sources 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15136) exempts applicants who produce a court order permitting travel 1999 0 Supreme(Bom) 854.
The has issued clear directives to balance individual rights with public interest. In Deepak Dwarkasingh Chhabria1999 0 Supreme(Bom) 854, the Court held:
The passport authority cannot reject the application for passport mechanically on the ground of pendency of criminal case if the applicant obtains permission from the concerned for travelling outside India.
Key points from judicial precedents include:
These guidelines ensure restrictions are lawful, not capricious.
If criminal proceedings are pending, follow these steps:
In (referenced across cases), the Court established that includes the right to go abroad, subject to 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 3744. Recent rulings echo this: even with limited validity causing hardship, renewal for 10 years may be granted if travel permission is sought per trip 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 3744.
For example, in a case involving a 72-year-old petitioner, the court quashed a denial and allowed four months' travel with bonds, emphasizing age and 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1416.
While permissions are generally granted, exceptions apply:
The Court in one ruling noted: Notification dated requires the Court to grant permission to travel abroad and on the basis of such order, the passport is required to be issued. If such order does not specify the period of travel, passport can be issued for 1 year 2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15136. In national security contexts like cases, stricter conditions prevail, but rights to speedy trial under Article 21 still factor in 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1101.
Impounding under is impermissible; specific Passports Act provisions govern 2021 1 Supreme 746. Absconders cannot seek relief, as seen in detentions 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 789.
For applicants:
Authorities should train on notifications to avoid refusals, informing applicants of rights 1999 0 Supreme(Bom) 854. Courts must balance travel rights with trial needs, incorporating safeguards like no witness tampering 2021 0 Supreme(Del) 358.
In Kasturi Rajupeta v. Union of India, limited passport validity was deemed undue hardship, directing 10-year renewal with per-trip permissions 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 3744.
The has democratized travel rights, ensuring pending cases do not arbitrarily bar passports. Obtain court permission, leverage the 1993 notification, and expect prompt action from authorities. Core takeaways:
Stay informed, respect processes, and uphold your rights. For personalized guidance, consult legal experts. This overview draws from established precedents to empower informed decisions.
#PassportGuidelines #SupremeCourtIndia #TravelRights
It is stated that after obtaining the visas, he had surrendered the passport in the Court and that during the period for grant of Visa, his passport was lying with the concerned authorities. ... It is also stated that he has never violated any condition or direction of the Court when he was granted permission to travel abroad. ... As regards the contention that applicant had forged some documents once to obtain permission to travel ....
It is stated that after obtaining the visas, he had surrendered the passport in the Court and that during the period for grant of Visa, his passport was lying with the concerned authorities. ... It is also stated that he has never violated any condition or direction of the Court when he was granted permission to travel abroad. ... As regards the contention that applicant had forged some documents once to obtain permission to travel ....
A significant facet of the Supreme Court’s reasoning lies in the clear distinction drawn between possession of a passport and permission to travel abroad. ... While construing the notification, the Supreme Court has observed: “What the notification does not do is to create a new substantive bar beyond Section 6(2)(f), or to insist that the criminal court must, in every case, grant a prior blanket permission to ‘depart from ... Renew....
Notification dated 28.06.1993 requires the Court to grant permission to travel abroad and on the basis of such order, the passport is required to be issued. If such order does not specify the period of travel, passport can be issued for 1 year. ... True it is that he has not given specific date or period of travel but the trial Court should have passed order of issuing passport. Passing of an order in terms of the....
It was further held that if the petitioner requires to travel abroad then the petitioner shall seek permission from the concerned court. 15. The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. ... (Oral)--By way of the present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 1st May, 2023 passed by the ACMM, East District, Karkardooma Court in Complaint Case No.52496/2016, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of permission for issuance/renewal of ....
Notification dated 28.06.1993 requires the Court to grant permission to travel abroad and on the basis of such order, the passport is required to be issued. If such order does not specify the period of travel, passport can be issued for 1 year. ... True it is that he has not given specific date or period of travel but the trial Court should have passed order of issuing passport. Passing of an order in terms of the....
The applicant sought permission to travel to the USA for revalidation of his Green Card. The High Court rejected the permission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal by holding that: - “22. ... Supreme Court until further orders. ... Progress of the case is being monitored by the High Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In these circumstances, in case the applicant is granted #H....
to travel abroad though there is a permission granted to apply for and obtain a passport with short validity. ... Therefore, as far as the Passport Authority is concerned, the fact that Exts.P1 and P2 orders do not specifically grant permission to the petitioner to travel abroad need not be a reason to deny the re-issue of the passport, especially when the petitioner has undertaken that he will ... not travel abroad without obtaini....
One view can be that the court chooses to grant unbridled permission to the applicant to leave the country by not stipulating any time-frame for such permission. ... In a case which fell under Section 6(2)(f) of the 1967 Act, the Supreme Court directed the passport authority to renew the passport of the applicant without raising objection to the pendency of the criminal appeal in the Supreme Court. ... The logic be....
(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order; (b) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a
(iii) The applicant will furnish his cell phone number to the trial court, on which he shall be connected and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched on all the times. (v) In case of any change in his residential address, he file details before the trial court promptly and inform in writing. (iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, before the trial court and shall not travel out of the country without permission of the trial court. (vi) Any of the observation in this order shall not be binding on the trial court with regard to the trial.
If the appellant has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the learned Trial Court and shall not travel out of the country without prior permission of the learned Trial Court; The appellant shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of the case.
However, the only requirement in such cases is that the court where the criminal proceeding is pending, must grant permission for the period of such travel or the period for which the passport can be issued . Based upon such permission, the passport issuing authority can issue the requisite document enabling travel.
The appellant shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial. The appellant shall ordinarily reside at her place of residence as per the trial court records and shall inform the Investigating Officer if she changes her usual place of residence; (e) The appellant shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. (d) If the appellant has a passport, she shall surrender....
He submits that MNK was granted bail by the CMM, and during the course of hearing, he had undertaken that any process or summons served upon his counsel shall amount to service upon him. Similar undertaking was recorded by this Court while deciding the issue relating to release of his passport, and permission to travel abroad. MNK has not travelled abroad despite the said permission and, therefore, neither was there any intention to abscond, nor to evade the execution of the Detention Order.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
