Judicial authorities regarding permission for passport

 

Judicial authorities regarding permission for passport

Where criminal proceedings are pending, the accused may apply before the concerned criminal court for permission/no objection for issuance or re-issuance of a passport. The applicant should also furnish an affidavit or written undertaking affirming continued participation in the proceedings and appearance before the court whenever required.

Governing provisions

1. Section 6(2)(f), Passports Act, 1967
   The Passport Authority may refuse issuance of a passport where criminal proceedings against the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.
2. Section 22, Passports Act, 1967 read with G.S.R. 570(E), dated 25 August 1993
   The statutory notification creates an exception. A person facing criminal proceedings may obtain a passport upon producing an appropriate order of the concerned court and furnishing a written undertaking to appear before that court whenever required during the validity of the passport.
3. Office Memorandum dated 10 October 2019
   The applicant must disclose every pending criminal case in the undertaking. Mere registration of an FIR or pendency of investigation, without cognizance by a criminal court, ordinarily does not attract Section 6(2)(f).

Important judicial references

1. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Another, 2025 INSC 1476

The Supreme Court authoritatively held that pendency of criminal proceedings does not create an absolute prohibition against issuance or renewal of a passport. The criminal court may grant permission or no objection after considering the circumstances and securing the applicant’s presence through appropriate conditions.

The applicant is required to furnish an undertaking that he shall appear before the concerned court whenever required. The Court may also direct that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission. If the court specifies the passport’s validity period, the Passport Authority should honour that period; otherwise, the statutory default provisions may apply.

2. Nausheen Wasim v. State of West Bengal & Others, WPA 25175 of 2024, decided on 28 November 2024, Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court observed that if an applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial and remain available whenever required by the criminal court, there is ordinarily no reason to refuse permission to travel abroad unless genuine circumstances indicate a risk of abscondence.

The Court recognised the relevance of an undertaking specifying the period of foreign travel and the date within which the applicant would return to India.

3. Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2020 Criminal Law Journal (SC) 572

The Supreme Court held that Section 6(2)(f) concerns criminal proceedings pending before a trial court. Pendency of a criminal appeal, by itself, cannot automatically justify refusal to renew a passport. The decision supports the proposition that passport restrictions must be applied according to the exact statutory conditions and not mechanically.