The Supreme Court has ruled that a passport authority cannot refuse to renew a passport indefinitely merely because criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant, especially where the competent criminal court has expressly permitted the passport to be renewed, subject to conditions. The Court stressed that the right to travel and hold a passport is part of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed unfairly.
Key Points of the Judgment
The bench held that although Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 allows refusal of a passport when criminal proceedings are pending, this provision cannot be treated as an absolute bar when a trial court (and even a High Court) has authorised renewal with appropriate safeguards.
The Court explained that the purpose of the statutory restriction — to ensure the applicant’s availability for trial — is met when the criminal court retains control over foreign travel by imposing conditions (such as requiring permission before travel).
The Supreme Court observed that denial of renewal in such circumstances amounts to a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on the individual’s rights, especially when judicial supervision already exists.
The Court emphasised that possessing a valid passport and actual overseas travel are distinct legal issues: renewal cannot be withheld simply to prevent travel, since the criminal court can control travel separately.
Significance
This ruling clarifies that a pending criminal case alone does not justify indefinite refusal of passport renewal if the trial court has expressly allowed renewal (with or without restrictions on travel). The judgment reinforces the constitutional guarantee of freedom of movement and prevents administrative authorities from acting on speculative fears without lawful basis.
