Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr.

SLP (C) No. 17769 of 2025

VIKRAM NATH and AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ

Overview

The Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the pending criminal case and existing conviction can be reasons sufficient for withholding the renewal of an ordinary passport in view of the clear “no objection” orders issued by the cognizant criminal courts. Giving prominence to the fact that the right of having a passport and roaming internationally is an integral part of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 21, the Court clarified how the provisions of Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, and the exemption notification GSR 570(E) dated 25th of August 1993, ought to be given precedence.

Facts

The passport of the appellant had expired in August of 2023. He was also an accused in an NIA case which was pending in the Special NIA Court, Ranchi, as well as in the CBI Coal Block Case in which he had also been convicted but had been granted a suspended sentence by the Delhi High Court. In both cases, he was imposed with the condition that he should not leave the country without permission.

However, nearing the expiration of the passport, the NIA court allowed the release of the passport only for renewal and ordered its redeposit after the renewal. Similarly, the Delhi High court gave “No Objection” for the renewal of the passport for ten years. Based on these orders, the appellant sought the re-issue of his passport through the Regional Passport office of Kolkata. However, his application was rejected by the Passport authority based on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, since criminal proceedings were pending, and no court had permitted him to travel abroad.

The Calcutta High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench), while affirming the refusal, ruled that the renewal was preempted in asmuch as there was no specific travel permission under GSR 570(E). The aggrieved appellant appealed before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

• Whether re-issue of an expired passport falls within the bar contained in Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act.
• Whether “no objection” orders allowing renewal, but limiting foreign travel, meet the criteria in GSR 570(E).
• Whether denial of passport renewal on the basis that a person is under judicial control regarding travel can be said to result in a disproportionate measure of limiting individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Decision and Reasoning

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. They emphasized that Section 6(2)(f) is not an absolute prohibition, but it has exemptions that are exempted under Section 22 of the Act. GSR 570(E) enacts a controlled relaxation for individuals charged for criminal cases, taking into consideration that the courts have applied their mind on the issue.

The Court overruled the limited interpretation that the renewal is valid only if it is authorised by a court for a specific foreign journey. The court held that criminal courts can validly permit renewal with the retention of complete control over travel by giving conditions regarding the need for prior permission. In effect, the orders of the NIA court and the High court of Delhi covered the statutory requirement of ensuring the availability of the appellant for trial.

The Court further held that an appeal of conviction does not automatically implicate Section 6(2)(f), as this is for pre-conviction applications, and cited authority for the proposition that the existence of an appeal in respect of a criminal conviction is not, in and of itself, a valid ground for refusing a renewal application.

Finding the High Court decision too rigid and out of proportion, the Supreme Court quashed the tainted judgment and ordered the re-issue of the passport for the normal period of ten years, subject to compliance with the existing bail conditions and future court orders.