The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the mere pendency of criminal cases, without conviction, cannot serve as a ground to deny passport renewal. This ruling reinforces the constitutional right to travel abroad under Article 21 and sets a clear boundary on administrative discretion under the Passports Act, 1967.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rajendra Shekhar Makkad, aged 64, applied for renewal of his passport bearing No. E2285316 after its expiry. His applications were repeatedly rejected by the Regional Passport Office, Jaipur, on the ground that five criminal cases were pending against him. The petitioner had not been convicted in any of these cases. He first filed S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 638/2024 seeking relief, but withdrew it with the expectation that the passport authority would reconsider his renewal application. After no action was taken over a significant period, he filed the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was issued passport No. E2285316, which expired and was not renewed
- Five criminal cases were registered against him: Sessions Case Nos. 51/2014, 151/2013, 35/2013, 45/2013, and 116/2013
- All five cases remain pending; no conviction has been recorded in any
- The petitioner submitted multiple renewal applications, all of which were rejected
- The passport authority relied on an Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024, which required a specific court direction to process renewal in cases involving pending criminal proceedings
- The petitioner withdrew a prior petition (Crl. Misc. No. 638/2024) on 15.03.2024, expecting administrative reconsideration
- No renewal decision was issued despite waiting over six months
Procedural History
- Date of passport expiry: Not specified, but renewal applications submitted after expiry
- Multiple renewal applications: Submitted between expiry and 2023
- 30.09.2023: Passport Office rejected renewal application citing pending criminal cases
- 15.03.2024: Petitioner withdrew S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 638/2024
- 06.12.2024: Passport Department issued Office Memorandum requiring court direction for renewal in pending criminal cases
- 2026: Present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS
- 06.05.2026: Arguments concluded
- 13.05.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that pending criminal cases, absent conviction, cannot justify denial of passport renewal. Relied on multiple judgments from the Rajasthan High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court holding that Article 21 protects the right to travel, and administrative denial based solely on pendency violates this right.
Respondent (Passport Office): Contended that Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024 mandates that renewal applications from persons facing criminal trials can only be processed upon specific court direction. Asserted that the memorandum is a valid administrative guideline.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 30.09.2023, direction to the Passport Office to process his renewal application without regard to the pendency of criminal cases, and a declaration that such denial violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Legal Issue
Can the mere pendency of criminal cases, without any conviction, be a valid ground under Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, to deny renewal of a passport?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on multiple judgments of coordinate benches of the Rajasthan High Court, including Saurabh Mantri v. Union of India (14.12.2023), Chetan Soni v. State of Rajasthan (22.08.2024), Abhayjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan (02.09.2024), and Mohammad Muslim Khan v. Union of India (30.07.2025), all holding that pendency alone cannot justify denial of passport renewal. She further cited Hardik Shah v. Union of India (2022 AIR MP 57) from the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Emphasizing Surendra Pal Singh Sahni v. State of Rajasthan (15.04.2026), where a coordinate bench allowed passport renewal despite 23 pending cases, she argued that the present case, involving only five pending cases, is even more compelling. The right to travel abroad is an integral part of Article 21, and administrative denial without conviction amounts to arbitrary state action.
For the Respondent
The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, requires that passport renewal applications from individuals facing criminal trials be processed only upon a specific direction from a court. He argued that the memorandum is a legitimate administrative guideline to prevent misuse of passports by accused persons and that the Passport Office is bound to follow it.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal framework under Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, which permits refusal of a passport if the applicant is “under a criminal charge” or “has been convicted of an offence.” The Court noted that the statute does not authorize denial on the basis of mere pendency of proceedings. The Passport Office’s reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024 was found to be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and judicial precedents.
"Mere pendency of criminal cases, in the absence of any conviction against the petitioner/accused, cannot be a valid ground to deny renewal of passport under Section 6(2)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, as such denial would amount to infringement of the right to travel abroad guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
The Court emphasized that Article 21 protects the liberty to travel abroad, a right recognized in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judgments. The administrative guideline, while intended for caution, cannot override constitutional rights or statutory limitations. The Court distinguished between a conviction, which justifies restriction, and pendency, which does not. The Office Memorandum, if interpreted to permit blanket denial, would be ultra vires the Act and unconstitutional.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had not been convicted in any of the five cases, and there was no allegation of flight risk or obstruction of justice. The denial, therefore, was not only legally unsound but also disproportionate.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court quashed and set aside the order dated 30.09.2023 rejecting the passport renewal application. The respondent authorities are directed to process the petitioner’s renewal application without regard to the pendency of the five criminal cases, provided he fulfills all other statutory conditions under the Passports Act, 1967. The renewal process must be completed at the earliest.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mere Pendency Is Not a Ground for Denial
- Practitioners can now confidently challenge passport denials based solely on pending criminal cases
- Administrative guidelines that conflict with constitutional rights under Article 21 are invalid
- The burden shifts to the state to prove actual risk (e.g., flight risk, obstruction) - not mere pendency
Judicial Precedents Are Binding Across Benches
- Coordinate benches of the same High Court are bound by prior rulings on identical issues
- The Surendra Pal Singh Sahni precedent, even involving more cases, controls this decision
- Any future denial must be supported by specific, case-specific evidence - not blanket policies
Procedural Fairness Required
- Applicants must be given a fair opportunity to respond before denial
- Denial without reasons or without reference to statutory grounds violates natural justice
- Passport authorities must now document specific grounds under Section 6(2), not rely on internal memos
