Madras High Court
Ganesan Kumaresan vs The Regional Passport Officer on 26 August, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A(MD) No.2282 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 08.08.2025
Pronounced on : 26.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A(MD) No.2282 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.12851 of 2025
Ganesan Kumaresan ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Regional Passport Officer,
Regional Passport Office,
Bharathi Ula Veethi,
Race Course Road,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Suchindram Police Station,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents / Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order passed by the Single Bench in WP(MD)No.16123 of
2025 dated 17.06.2025.
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
W.A(MD) No.2282 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan,
Deputy Solicitor General of India for R1
Mr.T.Senthilkumar
Additional Public Prosecutor for R2
JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The
appellant is an industrialist. His passport is valid upto 23.11.2025. He
sought its renewal. Since an adverse police verification report was
received by the passport authority, the renewal application was not
processed. In these circumstances, the appellant filed WP(MD)No.
16123 of 2025 for directing the Regional Passport Officer, Madurai to
renew his passport. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition with liberty to the appellant to move a suitable application
before the trial court. Assailing the order dated 17.06.2025 dismissing
the writ petition, this writ appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out
that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the decision reported in
2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992 (Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala v.
State of Maharashtra) had held that pendency of criminal
proceedings before the trial court cannot be an impediment for renewal
of one's passport. He called upon us to follow the said decision and
allow this writ appeal.
3.Per contra, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
submitted that the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge is in
consonance with the legal position and that interference with the said
order is not warranted.
4.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through
the materials on record. The writ petitioner is admittedly an accused in
S.C No.128 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Nagercoil
for the offences under Sections 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act and
Sections 370(1), 370(5), 370(a)(1) of IPC. That is why, in view of
Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, the writ petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
application for renewal was not processed. The provision reads as
follows :
“6.Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.—
....
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport
authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document
for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-
section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the following
grounds, and on no other ground, namely:—
(a) .....
(b) ....
(c) ...
(d) ...
(e)...
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have
been committed by the applicant are pending before a
criminal court in India;
The imperative nature of the provision is evident from the employment
of the expression “shall”. The passport authority is obliged to refuse to
issue passport if the applicant is facing proceedings in a criminal court.
This provision has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the
proceedings must be actually pending before the trial court. In other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
words, mere registration of an FIR would not operate as an impediment
for issuance of passport. Since such a blanket prohibition would cause
injustice and irreparable hardship in particular cases, the Government of
India had issued Notification Dated 25.08.1993 enabling issuance of
passport even if the criminal cases are pending before the trial court, if
the applicant could produce order from the court concerned permitting
them to depart from India. The notification is as follows :
“MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 25th August, 1993
G.S.R.570(E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967)
and in supersession of the notification of the Government of
India in the Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R. 298(E),
dated the 14th April, 1976, the Central Government, being of
the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so,
hereby exempts citizens of India against whom proceedings
in respect of an offences alleged to have been committed by
them are pending before a criminal court in India and who
produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to
depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of
Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act,
subject to the following conditions, namely : -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be
issued-
(1) for the period specified in order of the court referred to
above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport
has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the
travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be
issued for a period one year,
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a
period less than one year, but does not specify the period
validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one
year; or
(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) above
can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the
applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the
order of the court is not cancelled or modified;
(c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be
further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order
specifying a further period of validity of the passport or
specifying a period for travel abroad;
(d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the
passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the
court concerned, appear before it at any time during the
continuance in force of the passport so issued.
[No. VI 401/37/79)
K. PONAPPA, Jt. Secy. (CPV)”
It is true that the right to travel abroad has been acknowledged as a
fundamental right in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr.,
(1978) 1 SCC 248 and Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D.
Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer,
Government of India, New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1836).
But this right to travel abroad is not an absolute right. The requirement
that the person facing criminal prosecution in a criminal court has to
obtain leave from the court concerned for leaving India is a reasonable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
restriction. Whenever writ petitions have been filed by such persons for
issuance of passport, the Madras High Court has been disposing them
of by granting liberty to them to move the trial court to obtain leave.
5.The question that calls for consideration is whether such an
approach has to be abandoned and a departure made in view of the
decision reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1992. The Hon'ble
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had held that the Notification
dated 25.08.1993 would apply only in the case of issuance of passport
and not in the case of renewal of passport. The Hon'ble Bench went to
the extent of holding that pendency of proceedings before the criminal
court would not come in the way of the applicant who is seeking
renewal of passport. In other words, what would be an obstacle when
one applies for the first time for issuance would not be so when renewal
is sought.
6.We say with utmost humility and respect that the distinction
sought to be made by the Bombay High Court is one without difference.
Issuance as well as renewal stand on the same footing. In the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
renewal also, the very same process as that of issuance of passport will
have to be adopted. We proceed to illustrate our point. Suppose at the
time of renewal, the applicant who was originally an Indian citizen
ceased to be so, can the renewal has to be done as a matter of
course ?. The answer obviously is in the negative.
7.The authorities have clarified that there is no usage of the term
'renewal' for the past fifteen years. There are two types of
applications : one is for issue of fresh passport ; the other comes under
're-issue category'. Both the applications are in the same format. The
fee payable for both categories is same. The only concession in the
case of re-issue of passport is that proof of document for the date of
birth is not required to be submitted. Processing of both the categories
is almost same.
8.We, therefore, hold that the notification dated 25.8.1993 would
apply not only in the case of issuance for the first time but also when
processing an application for re-issue. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court
purports to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
No.1342/2017. That was a case where the applicant had suffered
conviction for a period of one year. The appeal filed by him was
pending consideration before the first appellate court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Curt concluded that Section 2(f) of the Passports Act, 1967
relates to a situation where the applicant was facing trial in a criminal
court. It also held that since the applicant therein had suffered
sentence for a lesser period, Section 2(e) of the Act also will not apply.
The case on hand is thus clearly distinguishable on facts.
9.In this view of the matter, we respectfully decline to follow the
decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court relied on the
by the learned counsel for the appellant.
10.In Ashok Muthana vs. The Regional Passport Officer
(2014) 7 MLJ 422, His Lordship Mr.Justice V. Ramasubramanian (As
His Lordship Then Was) held as follows :
“16.A careful look at the entire scheme of the Act
would show that the provisions of the Passport Act
basically deal with three types of issues such as (1) issue
or refusal to issue passports (2) Variation, impounding or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
revocation of passports and (3) suspension of passports.
It is interesting to note that no provision in the Act deals
with the renewal of passport. Even Section 8 which deals
with extension of the period of passport, covers only
cases where a passport is issued for a shorter period
than the prescribed period under Section 7. Therefore
once a passport expires, upon the expiry of the normal
duration stipulated in terms of Section 7 of the Act, a
person may have to apply for renewal or extension or re-
issue, by whatever name it is called. But that application
will be considered only in terms of Section 5. In other
words, the terms renewal, extension or re-issue, of a
passport after the expiry of the normal period as
originally prescribed, should be construed only the issue
of passport.
Thus, it has been held that renewal of passport should be considered
only as issuance of passport. In other words, renewal would only mean
re-issuance of passport. In view of the aforesaid decision, the
distinction sought to be introduced by the Bombay High Court stands
totally undermined.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
11.While finalising the order we came across the order dated
28.03.2024 passed by Hon'ble Dr.Justice Anita Sumanth in WP No.1190
of 2024 (Karti P.Chidambaram v. the Regional Passport Officer,
Chennai). The Bombay decision mentioned above was cited before
Her Ladyship also. After navigating through the precedents, the
Hon'ble Judge concluded as follows :
“75. My conclusion is thus, that, Section 5 applies to
both new as well as renewal of passport, and the grounds for
refusal set out under Section 6(2) would apply equally to
both situations, issuance of new as well as renewal passports.
There is thus no merit in the submission of the petitioner that
the grounds for refusal set out under Section 6(2) are
unavailable in the case of passport renewals. This issue is
answered in favour of the respondent.”
We respectfully agree with the aforesaid conclusion and endorse our
approval.
12.The petitioner is given liberty to move the trial Court for the
relief now sought for. As and when such miscellaneous petition is filed,
it shall be numbered and disposed of within a period of three weeks
thereafter. The learned trial Judge shall bear in mind that right to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
travel abroad is a fundamental right. The petitioner's business may
suffer if he is denied the right to go abroad. The trial Court shall not
deny relief unless there are extraordinary circumstances. Of course, the
period of validity of passport will have to be restricted. It is also open
to the trial Judge to stipulate appropriate conditions to ensure that the
prosecution is not stalled on account of the petitioner's absence from
India. If necessary, the applicant can be directed to file an application
under Section 228 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 205 of Cr.Pc) by
executing a special vakalat. Based on the order passed by the trial
Court, the petitioner shall move the jurisdictional regional passport
officer who shall dispose of the petition-mentioned application in terms
of the said order.
13.This writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(G.R.S., J.) & (K.R.S., J.)
26.08.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
SKM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
To
1.The Regional Passport Officer,
Regional Passport Office,
Bharathi Ula Veethi, Race Course Road,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Suchindram Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
SKM
and
26.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/08/2025 06:20:37 pm )
