Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court

Mere Registration of FIR Does Not Invoke Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act—Passport Cannot Be Denied Without Judicial Cognizance - In a significant judgment Karnataka High Court directed the Ministry of External Affairs and the Regional Passport Office to reconsider the passport renewal application of Sreejith Vijaan Sreekumari, ruling that the mere pendency of a criminal investigation "does not amount to a legal embargo on passport renewal unless the court has taken cognizance of the charges."

Allowing the writ petition, the Court held: "The refusal to renew a passport solely on the basis of an ongoing police investigation violates the rights of an individual under the Passports Act. Unless a court has taken cognizance of the offense, the restrictions under Section 6(2)(f) do not apply."

"Passport Renewal Denied Due to Pending FIR—Was It Legally Justified?"

The petitioner, Sreejith Vijaan Sreekumari, an Indian citizen residing in the United States, had applied for the renewal of his Indian passport (No. M5407876) issued by the Consulate General of India in San Francisco, USA, which was set to expire on September 8, 2025.

However, the Regional Passport Office in Bengaluru refused to renew the passport, citing an ongoing criminal investigation in India. The petitioner's sister-in-law had filed a complaint leading to the registration of Crime No. 218/2023 under Sections 354A, 354D, 504, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Despite the matter being under investigation, the authorities denied the renewal, prompting the petitioner to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus.

"Refusal to Renew a Passport Must Be Based on Legal Grounds, Not Administrative Discretion"

The petitioner’s counsel relied on a previous judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Sharath Chandrasekhar v. Union of India (WP No. 18066/2023, decided on February 14, 2024), where the Court had ruled that mere pendency of an investigation does not trigger Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.

The Court reiterated this position, holding: "The Passports Act does not empower authorities to deny passport renewal solely based on an FIR. Only when a court takes cognizance of an offense and issues an order under Section 6(2)(f) can such a restriction be imposed."

"Judicial Cognizance, Not Police Investigation, Triggers Passport Restrictions"

The Court examined Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, which states that a passport can be refused if the applicant is facing criminal charges "before a court of law and has been specifically restrained from traveling."

It ruled that: "A criminal investigation, without a formal charge sheet or court cognizance, does not attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(f). The authorities cannot assume a judicial function and impose travel restrictions where the law does not provide for such limitations."

"Court Directs Passport Authorities to Reconsider Application Without Delay"
Setting aside the decision of the passport authorities, the High Court issued the following directions:

•    A writ of mandamus was issued to the authorities, directing them to process the petitioner's passport renewal application.
•    The authorities were ordered to reconsider the application within one week from the receipt of the order, subject to the fulfillment of all other formal requirements.
•    The petitioner’s legal right to international travel could not be curtailed solely on the basis of a pending investigation.
The Court concluded: "Denying a passport on mere apprehensions without judicial backing amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power. Unless legal restrictions are imposed by a court, an Indian citizen's right to hold a passport cannot be denied."

Karnataka High Court Protects Passport Rights Against Arbitrary Denial
This judgment reinforces the principle that passport renewals cannot be refused merely on the basis of a pending investigation. The ruling establishes that "the Passports Act must be interpreted strictly, and authorities cannot deny fundamental rights based on administrative assumptions."

The petition was allowed, and the passport authorities were directed to reconsider the renewal without delay.

Date of Decision: 12 March 2025