Introduction: A Crucial Issue for Indian Citizens
Millions of Indian citizens face uncertainty when a criminal case is pending against them, especially regarding passport renewal. A common belief is that once a criminal case is pending, passport renewal becomes impossible. The Supreme Court of India, through this landmark decision, has categorically removed this misconception and restored clarity on the balance between law enforcement and personal liberty.
Background of the Case
In this case, the petitioner was an Indian citizen whose passport was issued in 2013 and expired in 2023. During this period, two criminal cases were pending against him—one before an NIA Court and another before a Delhi court. The petitioner was on bail, and the courts had imposed conditions restricting him from leaving India without prior permission.
Judicial Permission for Passport Renewal
Before the expiry of his passport, the petitioner approached the concerned courts seeking permission for renewal. The NIA Court granted limited permission to renew the passport, subject to the condition that the renewed passport would be deposited back with the court. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court also made it clear that it had no objection to renewal of the passport for a period of ten years.
Refusal by the Passport Authority
Despite clear judicial orders, the Regional Passport Office refused to renew the passport. The authority relied on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, stating that since criminal proceedings were pending, the passport could not be issued or renewed. This administrative refusal gave rise to the core legal dispute.
Is Section 6(2)(f) an Absolute Bar?
The Supreme Court examined whether Section 6(2)(f) imposes an absolute prohibition. The Court clarified that this provision cannot be read in isolation. Under Section 22 of the Passports Act, the Central Government has the power to grant exemptions. Exercising this power, the government issued Notification GSR 570(E) in 1993.
Significance of the 1993 Notification
The purpose of the 1993 notification was to ensure that individuals facing criminal proceedings are not completely deprived of passport facilities. Where a criminal court grants permission and imposes conditions restricting foreign travel, the passport authority is duty-bound to respect such judicial directions.
Difference Between Holding a Passport and Foreign Travel
A key clarification by the Supreme Court was that holding a passport and travelling abroad are two distinct legal concepts. Possession of a passport does not automatically confer the right to leave the country. Permission to travel abroad remains entirely within the control of the competent criminal court.
Article 21 and Personal Liberty
The Court reaffirmed that the right to hold a passport and to travel abroad flows from personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any restriction on this right must be fair, reasonable, and proportionate. Administrative authorities cannot disturb the judicial balance already achieved by court-imposed conditions.
Conviction, Appeal, and Passport Rights
Another important aspect was that the petitioner had been convicted in one case, but the conviction was under appeal and the sentence was stayed. The Supreme Court clarified that in such circumstances, Section 6(2)(f) does not automatically apply. A person facing trial and a person whose conviction is under appeal stand on different legal footing.
Final Conclusion of the Supreme Court
After considering all aspects, the Supreme Court held that refusal to renew the passport was arbitrary and disproportionate. The Court set aside the orders of the passport authority and directed issuance of a passport for ten years, subject to strict compliance with all conditions imposed by the concerned courts.
Impact of the Decision on Citizens
This judgment sends a strong message to citizens undergoing legal proceedings that the law does not aim to punish them by default. Pending criminal proceedings alone cannot extinguish fundamental rights. The ruling strengthens the principle of fairness and constitutional balance.
Conclusion: Importance of Timely Legal Advice
If you or your family members are facing difficulties related to passport renewal, pending criminal cases, bail conditions, Court Marriage, or constitutional rights, timely and correct legal guidance is essential. This Supreme Court decision serves as a protective shield for personal liberty against arbitrary administrative action.
Contact Information
For legal assistance across India https://delhilawfirm.news Helpline: 9990649999, 9999889091