Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Passport Authorities Cannot Block Renewal Without Pending Criminal Court Proceedings - In a landmark decision, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, presided over by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, ruled that the mere existence of an FIR or an ongoing investigation cannot be grounds for refusing passport reissuance. The Court emphasized that under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, restrictions apply only when proceedings are pending before a criminal court, not during an investigation stage.

"Holding back a passport solely based on an FIR is not just arbitrary but also a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The law is clear—criminal proceedings commence only when a charge sheet is filed, not during a preliminary investigation," the Court observed.

The petitioner, Mohammad Abass Lone, a retired government officer, had challenged the refusal of his passport renewal due to pending FIRs under Sections 468, 471, and 120-B IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Despite no charge sheet being filed against him, the authorities denied his application, citing pending investigations.

"Right to Travel Abroad Is Part of Personal Liberty—Cannot Be Curtailed Arbitrarily"
The High Court strongly reaffirmed the Supreme Court's ruling in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, AIR 1967 SC 1836, and Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, stating that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21.

"The restriction on the right to travel abroad must be backed by law, and the Passport Act does not permit denial of a passport merely due to an FIR. Until a charge sheet is filed and cognizance is taken by a criminal court, there are no 'pending proceedings' to justify such a refusal," the Court ruled.

The judgment also referenced the Madras High Court's decision in Venkatesh Kandasamy v. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, AIR 2015 Mad 3, which held that criminal proceedings are deemed pending only when a competent court takes cognizance, not when an FIR is under investigation.

"Following Precedent—Denial of Passport Renewal Based on FIR Alone Is Illegal"
The Court relied on its own precedent in Rajesh Gupta v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 1534/2022, where it was held that mere FIR registration is insufficient to refuse passport renewal. The respondents in the present case did not dispute the applicability of this ruling.

"When no charge sheet has been filed, and no court has taken cognizance, the denial of a passport is legally unsustainable. The respondents are bound to follow the law as laid down in Rajesh Gupta and reconsider the petitioner's application accordingly," the Court directed.

"High Court Quashes Passport Denial, Orders Reconsideration"
Concluding that the denial of passport renewal was illegal and unconstitutional, the High Court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's application within four weeks.

"The respondents are hereby directed to process the passport renewal application, notwithstanding the pendency of FIRs. However, before granting the passport, the authorities shall verify whether a final report or charge sheet has been filed in the cases in question," the Court ordered.

This ruling reinforces the principle that administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily curtail fundamental rights, especially when statutory provisions do not justify such restrictions.

Date of Decision: February 10, 2025