No Distinction Between Fresh and Renewal Passport Applications During Criminal Trials: Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has settled a long-standing procedural debate regarding the issuance of passports to individuals facing criminal charges. In a significant judgment, a three-member bench presided over by Justices G. Jayachandran, S. Srimathy, and K.K. Ramakrishnan ruled that there is no legal distinction between the process for issuing a fresh passport and the renewal of an existing one when criminal proceedings are pending.

The Case Background

The petitioner, Jawahar Rajan, had applied for the re-issue of his passport under the 'Tatkaal' scheme in August 2025. His application was stalled by the Regional Passport Office, Coimbatore, citing an adverse Police Verification Report (PVR) linked to a pending criminal case (Crime No. 26 of 2021) involving charges under Sections 120B, 294(b), 406, and 420 of the IPC .

While the petitioner argued that the case against him was false and that he cooperated with the authorities, the Passport Office insisted on compliance with statutory requirements regarding pending criminal litigation. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench due to conflicting rulings by previous Division Benches of the same court regarding whether renewal applications required the same level of judicial scrutiny as fresh applications.

Conflicting Precedents and the Larger Bench

Previously, in Samsudeen Mohamed Salih vs. Regional Passport Officer , the court had suggested that renewal could proceed without prior court permission, provided the applicant sought such permission only when actually traveling abroad. Conversely, in Ganesan Kumaresan vs. The Regional Passport Officer , the court held that prior permission from the trial court was mandatory. The Larger Bench was tasked with resolving this uncertainty.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s analysis centered on the Passports Act, 1967, and the statutory notifications issued under it. The Bench observed that the power to issue or renew a passport is rooted in Section 5 of the Act, and the restrictions under Section 6(2)(f)—which empowers authorities to refuse a passport when criminal proceedings are pending—apply universally.

The Court clarified that: 1. Harmonious Interpretation : The relief granted under notification GSR 570(E) does not create an exception for renewal applicants; rather, it provides a procedure to mitigate the rigor of Section 6(2)(f) for both fresh and renewal applicants. 2. Standardization : Official Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 serves as an administrative affirmation that requires strict compliance with the mandate to inform the Passport Authority of pending cases. 3. Definition of Proceedings : The Court held that "criminal proceedings" include the period from cognizance by a court until the final conclusion, effectively covering both trial and appellate stages.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the limitations of the right to travel abroad when an individual is subject to judicial processes:

> "The rigor of Section 6 (2)(f) of the Act, subject to exemption under GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and the instructions in OM dated 10.10.2019, will apply to all applicants either as a fresh application or renewal / reissue."

> "The expression ‘Criminal proceedings pending’ means the stage of taking cognizance of crime by the Criminal Court till the case attains finality. This includes appeal against conviction or acquittal."

The Court's Decision

The Larger Bench ruled definitively that the re-issue or renewal of a passport must be treated under the same regulatory framework as a fresh application. Consequently, the petitioner is required to secure prior permission from the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate where his case (C.C.No. 1730 of 2022) is pending before the Passport Office can further process his request.

This decision provides much-needed clarity for Regional Passport Offices across the jurisdiction, effectively ending the practice of treating renewal requests as distinct, less-scrutinized administrative exercises in the face of ongoing criminal prosecutions.