Right to Possess Passport is a Fundamental Right: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Refusal Amid Pending NDPS Trial

“Passport Cannot Be Denied Merely Because of a Pending Criminal Case”—Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled decisively in favour of the petitioner, holding that the right to hold a passport is an essential component of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and cannot be denied merely due to the pendency of a criminal trial unless there is an express judicial bar. Justice Harsh Bunger disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Passport Authority to process the petitioner’s application, observing that such denial amounted to an infringement of fundamental rights.

The Court held that “Mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be the ground to deny passport facilities to an applicant since right to personal liberty not only includes the right to travel abroad, but also the right to possess or hold a passport.”

Kuldeep Singh, the petitioner, was facing trial in FIR No. 89 dated 12.05.2022 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act before the Special Court, Moga. On 19.02.2025, the trial court granted him permission to apply for a passport in accordance with law and relevant Ministry of External Affairs guidelines.

In compliance, the petitioner submitted an application for a fresh passport on 12.03.2025, but the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, rejected it on 07.05.2025, stating that he had failed to obtain a specific order permitting him to “depart from India” under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993.

Aggrieved by the rejection, Kuldeep Singh approached the High Court under Articles 226/227, seeking a writ of mandamus for the issuance of a passport as permitted by the trial court.

The primary legal issue was whether the denial of a passport, despite permission from the trial court to apply for one, could be sustained merely because the petitioner had not been granted permission to leave the country.

The petitioner argued that the right to hold a passport is an extension of his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. He did not seek permission to travel abroad at this stage and offered to deposit the passport with the trial court.

The respondent (Union of India), through Central Government Counsel, submitted that under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and Notification GSR 570(E), a passport cannot be issued unless there is express permission from the trial court to depart from India.

Justice Harsh Bunger rejected the argument that absence of permission to travel abroad automatically bars issuance of a passport. He noted:

“The right to possess or hold a passport is an extension of the right to personal liberty under Article 21, and must be distinguished from the right to actually travel abroad.”

Referring to the landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court reiterated:

“No person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so, and such law contains fair, reasonable, and just procedure.”

The Court also relied heavily on Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI, where the Supreme Court held that even a convicted person with less than two years’ sentence cannot be denied a passport unless explicitly barred by law. In that context, the High Court emphasized:

“If a convicted person is entitled to seek a passport, there is no rationale to deny that right to a person who is merely facing trial and presumed innocent.”

Similarly, the Court cited Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India, where the Andhra Pradesh High Court held:

“Mere pendency of a case is not a ground to refuse renewal or demand surrender of a passport.”

The Court rejected the narrow and literal interpretation of Section 6(2)(f) and GSR 570(E), stating that these provisions apply to travel, not to the mere possession or issuance of a passport.

“A hyper-technical reading of GSR 570(E) cannot be allowed to override the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.”

Kuldeep Singh undertook before the Court that he would not leave India during the pendency of the trial without obtaining prior permission. He also offered to keep the passport in the custody of the trial court.

Taking note of this, the High Court laid down the following framework for compliance:

“The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the trial court declaring he shall not leave India without permission and shall deposit the passport with the trial court once issued.”

The Court directed the Regional Passport Office to process the passport application within three weeks, upon submission of the certified undertaking, and clarified:

“Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek permission to travel abroad separately from the trial court, as and when necessary.”

The Court's ruling reaffirms the primacy of Article 21 over rigid statutory interpretation. It strikes a balance between State interest in law enforcement and individual rights, particularly the right to personal liberty and dignity.

The Court concluded:

“A person facing trial cannot be denied the right to hold a passport when the trial court has not imposed any bar and the person has not even sought to leave the country. Personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be sacrificed at the altar of bureaucratic rigidity.”

Date of Decision: 20 May 2025