Top court holds passport is a civil identity document, authorities cannot refuse issuance solely due to pending criminal proceedings where courts have permitted renewal.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India has clarified that citizens who are accused in criminal cases cannot be categorically denied a passport issuance or its renewal merely because proceedings are pending. In its 23 December 2025 judgment, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Augustine George Masih underscored that the right to a passport is rooted in the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and distinguished between the document itself and the act of foreign travel.
Case Background
The issue arose from an appeal filed by Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, an Indian citizen whose passport renewal was denied by the Regional Passport Office (RPO), Kolkata, despite no objection orders from two criminal courts. Mr. Agarwal was involved in a National Investigation Agency (NIA) case in Jharkhand and a separate Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) coal block case in Delhi, both attracting travel restrictions from the respective courts.
Although the trial and High Courts had permitted renewal of his passport, subject to conditions including remaining within Indian jurisdiction and not traveling abroad without permission, the RPO refused to issue the passport for its full ten-year validity. The passport authority relied on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which allows refusal where criminal proceedings are pending.
Key Legal Issue
The principal legal question was whether Section 6(2)(f) operates as an absolute bar to passport issuance and renewal when criminal proceedings are pending, even if the concerned criminal courts have actively considered and permitted renewal while retaining travel supervision.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the passport authority’s refusal and directing the RPO to reissue an ordinary passport with normal ten-year validity within four weeks, subject to the existing conditions imposed by the criminal courts.
Reasoning of the Court
The Bench’s reasoning rested on several key principles:
- Distinction Between Passport and Foreign Travel: A passport is an identity document; foreign travel remains subject to the court’s supervision and individual conditions.
- Exemption Framework under Section 22: The Passports Act permits the Central Government to exempt certain cases via notifications like GSR 570(E), enabling passport issuance/renewal when courts have applied their mind and the applicant furnishes an undertaking.
- Proportionality and Liberty: Denying a passport outright, where criminal courts have consciously permitted renewal under supervision, amounts to disproportionate restriction on personal liberty and mobility.
- Continuing Regulatory Control: The State retains the ability to impound or revoke a passport under Section 10 if conditions change, a safeguard that balances personal freedom with judicial oversight.
The Bench expressly rejected the view that a court must authorise each trip or specify foreign travel dates as a precondition for passport issuance. It clarified that the passport authority cannot demand future travel plans or visas before issuing or renewing the document.
Practical Implications
- Clarification of Law: This judgment settles that pending criminal cases do not automatically disqualify an applicant from receiving a passport, provided relevant courts have considered and allowed renewal under supervision.
- Passport Authority Obligations: Passport issuing authorities must respect court permissions and statutory exemptions and cannot rigidly apply Section 6(2)(f) as an absolute bar.
- Judicial Oversight: The decision reinforces the role of criminal courts in supervising travel without unduly restricting fundamental rights.
- Policy and Practice: The ruling could impact administrative practices across Regional Passport Offices, ensuring proportionality in evaluating applications involving pending criminal matters.
The judgment adds clarity on the interplay between passport issuance/renewal rights and pending criminal cases, affirming that statutory bars must be interpreted in harmony with constitutional guarantees and judicial supervision mechanisms.
