Recently, the Supreme Court was confronted with a question that goes to the heart of personal liberty whether a citizen can be denied renewal of a passport merely because criminal proceedings are pending, even when competent criminal courts have already permitted renewal subject to strict conditions. The case required the Court to balance statutory restrictions under the Passports Act, 1967 with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of movement and dignity of the individual.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a dispute over renewal of an ordinary passport that expired while criminal proceedings were pending against the appellant. In one case, the appellant was facing trial and was on bail with conditions restraining him from leaving India without prior court permission and requiring deposit of his passport. In another case, though convicted, his sentence had been suspended on appeal, with a similar restriction on foreign travel. Before expiry, the appellant sought permission for renewal of his passport. The trial court permitted renewal subject to re-deposit of the passport and a continued bar on travel abroad without leave. The appellate court also granted “no objection” for renewal for the normal period, while maintaining the restriction on leaving the country. Despite these orders, the passport authority declined renewal for the normal duration on the ground of pending criminal proceedings, and the High Court upheld this view, giving rise to the appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the Appellant contended that the refusal to renew the passport was contrary to the statutory exemption framework under the Passports Act and the relevant notification issued by the Central Government. The counsel argued that once the competent criminal courts, fully aware of the pending proceedings, had consciously permitted renewal of the passport while retaining control over foreign travel, the statutory bar could not be applied as an absolute prohibition. The Appellant asserted that possession of a valid passport and actual permission to travel abroad are distinct concepts, and that denial of renewal amounted to a disproportionate restriction on personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the Respondents argued that the pendency of criminal proceedings attracted a statutory embargo on the issuance or renewal of a passport. According to them, exemption from this bar could operate only if the criminal court expressly permitted the applicant to travel abroad and specified the relevant period. Since no such blanket permission to leave the country had been granted, and the courts had merely allowed renewal subject to strict conditions, the passport authority was justified in refusing renewal for the normal period. The counsel further contended that the High Court had rightly upheld the statutory scheme and that no interference was warranted.
Observation of the Court:
The Supreme Court emphasised that personal liberty, including the right to travel and hold a passport, flows directly from Article 21 and cannot be curtailed mechanically. The Court observed that “Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
While examining the statutory bar relating to pending criminal proceedings, the Court clarified that such restriction is not absolute and must be read along with the exemption framework under the Passports Act. It held that “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 India’ as a jurisdictional precondition to the very issue or re-issue of a passport.”
The Court found fault with the approach of treating renewal of a passport as inseparable from permission to travel abroad, noting that both are distinct in law. It categorically observed that “It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport and the act of travelling abroad. A passport is a civil document… Whether a person who is on bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal court.”
Disapproving the view that pendency of criminal proceedings creates a near-permanent disability, the Court held that “They have, in effect, converted a qualified restriction, designed to secure the presence of an accused, into a near-permanent disability to hold a valid passport, even where the criminal courts themselves do not consider such a disability necessary.”
Finally, the Court underlined the principle of proportionality, cautioning against excessive executive restraint where judicial safeguards already exist “To add to these safeguards an indefinite denial of even a renewed passport… would be a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on the appellant’s liberty.”
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court orders, and directed renewal of the passport for the normal period. It clarified that the renewed passport would remain subject to all conditions imposed by the criminal courts, including restrictions on travel abroad.
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Agarwal V. Union of India & Anr.
Case No.: SLP(C) NO.17769/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih
Counsel for the Appellant: AOR Anup Kumar, Adv. Gauri Subramanium, Adv. Shruti Singh, Adv. Neha Jaiswal, Adv. Shivam Kumar, Adv. Abhisek Kumar, Adv. Vartika Vaishnavi.
Counsel for the Respondent: A.S.G. Aishwarya Bhati, AOR Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Gopi Chand, Adv. Ashok Kumar B, Adv. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv. Raghav Sharma.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
