The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that the pendency of criminal proceedings against a citizen cannot, by itself, justify the denial of passport renewal. In a significant affirmation of the right to travel as part of personal liberty under Article 21, the Court held that passport authorities must adjudicate renewal applications on their merits, subject to enforceable conditions that safeguard judicial process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Yellareddygari Pranay Kumar Reddy, applied for renewal of his passport, which was due to expire. The 2nd Respondent, the Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada, refused renewal on the basis of an adverse Police Verification Report dated 24.12.2025, which cited pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Anantapur district. The petitioner contended that the refusal was arbitrary, violative of his fundamental right to travel abroad, and contrary to the Passport Act, 1967 and Passport Rules, 1980.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is a 33-year-old resident of Raketla, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh.
- His passport was due for renewal in early 2026.
- Police Verification Report dated 24.12.2025 (Ref No. SCN/1053035072/25) flagged pending criminal proceedings.
- No specific charges, stage of trial, or nature of offence were disclosed in the report or in the refusal order.
- The petitioner filed the writ petition on 07.04.2026, along with two interim applications under Section 151 CPC seeking urgent passport renewal and permission to travel abroad.
Procedural History
- 24.12.2025: Adverse Police Verification Report issued by Commissioner of Police, Anantapur.
- Early January 2026: Passport renewal application rejected by Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada.
- 07.04.2026: Writ Petition No. 6972/2026 filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
- 07.04.2026: Simultaneously, a common order was passed in W.P. No. 5769/2026 and batch, setting out a uniform framework for passport renewal in cases involving pending criminal proceedings.
- 08.04.2026: This petition was heard and disposed of by reference to the earlier order.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The refusal was arbitrary, lacked reasoned justification, and violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The Passport Act and Rules do not empower authorities to deny renewal solely on the basis of pending criminal cases. The petitioner undertook to comply with court directions to ensure no abuse of travel privileges.
For the Respondents: The adverse police report and pending criminal proceedings justified refusal under the discretionary powers vested in passport authorities under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967. The state has a legitimate interest in preventing accused persons from fleeing the country.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A writ of mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to renew his passport.
- Interim permission to travel abroad pending final disposal.
- Declaration that the refusal was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 21.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 permit the denial of passport renewal solely on the ground of pending criminal proceedings, without any individualized assessment or procedural safeguards under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which established that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21. He argued that the Passport Act does not contain an absolute bar on renewal during pendency of criminal cases. The refusal was based on an unexplained police report, without notice, hearing, or opportunity to rebut. The petitioner offered to submit a binding undertaking not to leave the country without court permission.
For the Respondent
The Central Government Counsel contended that passport issuance is a privilege, not a right, and authorities must exercise discretion to prevent misuse. Pending criminal proceedings, especially in serious cases, create a risk of flight. The adverse police report, even if unelaborated, provided sufficient grounds for refusal under the broad powers conferred by Section 10 of the Passport Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that while the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that accused persons do not abscond, this interest cannot override fundamental rights without procedural fairness. The Court noted that the refusal order in this case was devoid of any reasoning, failed to specify the nature of the criminal proceedings, and did not afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
"The mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a ground to deny passport renewal without a reasoned order, opportunity of hearing, and consideration of the nature and stage of the proceedings."
The Court relied on its own recent order in W.P. No. 5769/2026 and batch, dated 07.04.2026, which had laid down a balanced framework. The Court held that the Passport Authorities must consider renewal applications on merit, subject to conditions that ensure the accused remains available for trial. The conditions prescribed - submission of an undertaking, certified copy from the trial court, deposit of the renewed passport, and seeking prior permission to travel - are reasonable, proportionate, and consistent with both the Passport Act and Article 21.
The Court emphasized that the burden of demonstrating a real risk of flight lies with the state, not the applicant. A blanket refusal based on an unexplained police report violates the principles of natural justice and the doctrine of proportionality.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The 2nd Respondent is directed to renew the petitioner’s passport for a period of ten years under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall submit an undertaking and affidavit affirming he will not leave India during pendency of criminal proceedings without court permission.
- The concerned trial court shall issue a certified copy of the undertaking within two weeks.
- The petitioner shall submit the certified copy to the Passport Officer.
- The Passport Officer shall decide the application within two weeks of receipt.
- Upon renewal, the petitioner shall deposit the original passport with the trial court.
- The petitioner shall seek prior permission from the trial court before any international travel. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Passport Renewal Cannot Be Denied on Mere Allegations
- Practitioners must challenge blanket denials of passport renewal based solely on pending criminal cases.
- Adverse police reports without details or reasoning are legally insufficient grounds for refusal.
- The burden shifts to the state to demonstrate a concrete risk of flight, not to the applicant to prove innocence.
Procedural Safeguards Are Mandatory
- Applicants must be given notice and opportunity to respond before denial.
- Passport authorities must record reasons linking the nature of the offence to the risk of flight.
- Courts will uphold renewal if the applicant submits a binding undertaking and complies with court-mandated conditions.
Uniform National Standard Established
- This judgment, by adopting the framework from W.P. No. 5769/2026, creates a binding precedent for all passport offices in Andhra Pradesh.
- Similar petitions in other High Courts may now cite this order as persuasive authority.
- Legal aid organizations can use this framework to assist accused persons seeking travel for medical, educational, or family emergencies.
