Introduction
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the mere pendency of a criminal case or FIR is not, by itself, a valid ground to deny the renewal or reissue of a passport. The Court emphasized that statutory conditions under the Passports Act must be strictly satisfied before passport authorities can refuse renewal.
Legal Issue
The Regional Passport Officer relied on an adverse police verification report and the pendency of a criminal case to withhold passport renewal. However, the Court found that no criminal proceedings were pending before a court in the manner contemplated under the law, making the refusal unsustainable.
Case Title
Ravi Ramesh v. The Union Government of India and Others
Case Background
The petitioner had obtained a passport in 2015, which was valid for ten years. Upon applying for renewal, the Regional Passport Officer issued a shortfall notice after receiving an adverse police verification report relating to an FIR registered in 2016 for alleged criminal breach of trust.
Although a final report had been submitted by the police before the jurisdictional court, the court had not yet taken cognizance of the matter. Despite the petitioner submitting an explanation, his passport was not renewed.
Petitioner’s Stance
The petitioner argued that mere registration or pendency of a crime cannot automatically result in refusal of passport renewal. He contended that since no court had taken cognizance of the alleged offences, there were no pending criminal proceedings before a court as required under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act.
Court’s Ruling
Justice Subba Reddy Satti held that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act permits refusal only when criminal proceedings are pending before a criminal court.
Since the jurisdictional court had not taken cognizance of the police report, the Court concluded that criminal proceedings could not be said to be pending before the court. Therefore, mere pendency of an FIR or crime was not a bar to passport renewal or reissue.
The Court also relied on the landmark decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which recognized the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Legal Significance
The judgment reinforces that:
- Registration of an FIR alone does not justify refusal of passport renewal.
- Section 6(2)(f) applies only when proceedings are actually pending before a criminal court.
- Passport authorities must act in accordance with statutory requirements and cannot deny renewal solely on the basis of police verification reports.
Final Verdict
The High Court directed the Regional Passport Officer to renew or reissue the petitioner’s passport without relying on the pending crime. The ruling strengthens the protection of an individual’s right to travel and prevents arbitrary denial of passport services based solely on the existence of an FIR.
