Pendency Of Criminal Case At FIR Stage Is No Bar To Issuance Or Renewal Of Passport: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"A perusal of Section 6(2)(f) would go to show that the said condition would operate only when a Court of appropriate criminal jurisdiction takes cognizance of the case and the said case is pending before the criminal Court." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that passport authorities cannot refuse to issue or renew a passport merely because a criminal case is pending at the First Information Report (FIR) stage.

A bench of Justice Battu Devanand observed that the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, does not apply during the investigation stage, stating that "in the present case, the matter is still pending investigation and no charge sheet has been filed."

A batch of writ petitions was filed by individuals whose applications for the issuance, re-issuance, or renewal of passports were either rejected or kept indefinitely pending by the Passport Authorities. The authorities justified this action by citing the pendency of criminal proceedings against the applicants. The petitioners approached the High Court arguing that the criminal cases were entirely at the investigation stage, with no charge sheets filed or cognizance taken by any court.

The primary question before the court was whether passport authorities are justified in rejecting or keeping passport applications pending solely on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending at the FIR stage. The court was also called upon to determine the exact stage at which the restriction under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, gets triggered.

Section 6(2)(f) Triggered Only After Cognizance

Examining the statutory framework, the court clarified the strict scope of the refusal power granted to the passport authorities. The bench noted that the mere registration of an FIR does not amount to a pending proceeding before a criminal court within the meaning of the Passports Act. The court categorically ruled that the restriction kicks in only after a charge sheet is filed and the magistrate applies their judicial mind.

Rejection Cannot Be Based On Investigation Phase

The bench elaborated that the authorities had fundamentally misconstrued the trigger point for invoking the statutory restriction. Because the criminal proceedings against the petitioners had not progressed past the police investigation phase, the court concluded that "the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) would not be applicable."

Exemption Mechanism Cannot Be Ignored

The court also highlighted the failure of the authorities to recognize the statutory exemption mechanism already in place. The bench pointed to the Central Government notification GSR No. 570(E) dated August 25, 1993, issued under Section 22 of the Act. The court emphasized that the issuance of a passport to a person falling within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f) need not be stalled if the individual obtains appropriate court orders specifying the period of validity or travel.

Right To Travel As A Fundamental Freedom

To underscore the constitutional stakes, the High Court relied extensively on a line of Supreme Court precedents, including Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India. The bench reiterated that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right that nourishes the independent and self-determining character of an individual. The court affirmed that no person can be deprived of this right except by a just, fair, and reasonable procedure.

Liberty Is State's First Obligation

The bench prominently quoted the recent Supreme Court judgment in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, which cautioned against allowing temporary disabilities to harden into indefinite exclusions. The High Court echoed the apex court's sentiment that restraints on the freedom to travel must be narrowly confined and proportionate to the object sought to be achieved.

"Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

Conditions Imposed Post-Charge Sheet

While allowing the petitions, the court established a clear post-charge sheet compliance mechanism for the applicants. The bench directed that if charge sheets are eventually filed after the completion of the investigation, the petitioners will be required to obtain necessary orders from the concerned trial courts regarding the further period of validity of their passports and travel conditions.

Authorities Retain Revocation Power

The court ensured that the State's interests were protected even after the passports were issued. The bench warned that if the petitioners fail to take the necessary steps to secure court permission once a charge sheet is filed, "it would be open to the Passport Authorities to revoke the passports of the petitioners after due notice."

The High Court allowed all the writ petitions and issued a categorical mandate to the Passport Authorities to issue, re-issue, or renew the passports of the petitioners forthwith. The ruling significantly safeguards citizens from being deprived of their fundamental right to travel abroad merely due to the pendency of unadjudicated police investigations.

Date of Decision: 07 April 2026