The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere pendency of old, unproven corruption charges cannot justify the denial of a passport renewal application. In a significant affirmation of procedural fairness, the Court set aside the rejection of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on grounds that the underlying allegations had remained dormant for nearly two decades without any meaningful prosecution or evidentiary determination.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Avnesh Kumar Agarwal, applied for renewal of his passport through the Regional Passport Authority, Bareilly. His application was rejected on 20.09.2025 by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bareilly, on the ground that two First Information Reports (FIRs) were pending against him involving serious allegations of corruption, forgery, and destruction of official records.
Key Facts
- Two FIRs were registered against the petitioner in 2007:
- FIR No.1634 of 2007, dated 13.09.2007, at Police Station Najibabad, Bijnor, under Sections 406, 420, 424, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 218 IPC, read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- FIR No.318 of 2007, dated 13.09.2007, at Police Station Mandawali, Bijnor, with substantially similar allegations.
- The allegations involved collusion between senior officers of the Uttar Pradesh Commercial Tax Department and private transporters to fabricate consignment records and cause loss to the State exchequer.
- The petitioner, a businessman, was named as one of 25 accused in both FIRs.
- No charge-sheet was filed in FIR No.1634 of 2007 until 2024 - over 17 years after registration.
- In FIR No.318 of 2007, investigation remained pending for nearly 18 years without any progress.
- The petitioner has been on bail since the inception of the proceedings.
- On 21.11.2025, a coordinate Bench of this Court stayed proceedings in FIR No.1634 of 2007, observing that the allegations were frivolous, the charge-sheet was delayed, and there was no pre-summoning evidence against the petitioner.
- The petitioner had no criminal conviction or pending trial warrant.
Procedural History
- 13.09.2007: FIRs registered against the petitioner.
- 2024: Charge-sheet filed in FIR No.1634 of 2007.
- 21.11.2025: Coordinate Bench of this Court stayed proceedings in FIR No.1634 of 2007.
- 20.09.2025: Special Judge, Bareilly, rejected petitioner’s application for NOC for passport renewal.
- 12.06.2025: Writ petition filed under Article 227 before the Allahabad High Court.
- 25.02.2026: Matter reserved for orders.
- 03.06.2026: Judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Learned counsel argued that the rejection of the NOC was arbitrary and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution. He emphasized that the charges were stale, unproven, and that the proceedings had been stayed by a coordinate Bench. He further submitted that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to deny a passport NOC - a matter falling within the domain of the Passport Authority.
For the Respondents: The Additional Advocate General contended that the gravity of the allegations - including arson of government offices and destruction of official records - warranted denial of the NOC as a precautionary measure. He argued that the pendency of serious corruption charges justified administrative caution.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 20.09.2025 rejecting his NOC application and a direction to the Regional Passport Authority to issue/renew his passport without delay.
The Legal Issue
Can the mere pendency of unproven, decade-old corruption charges, without any conviction or even a prima facie finding of guilt, justify the denial of a passport renewal application under the Passport Rules, 1980?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on K. Veeraswami v. Union of India and State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh to argue that the right to travel is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21. He submitted that denial of a passport requires a reasonable nexus between the alleged offence and the purpose of travel, which was entirely absent here. He further cited Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation to emphasize that administrative action based on suspicion alone, without due process, violates constitutional norms. The stay granted by the coordinate Bench on the criminal proceedings was a decisive factor indicating the lack of prosecutorial merit.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General contended that the nature of the allegations - involving destruction of public records and institutional corruption - posed a risk to public interest. He argued that the Passport Authority, acting under Rule 6(1)(e) of the Passport Rules, 1980, has discretionary power to refuse a passport if the applicant is involved in pending criminal proceedings of a serious nature. He relied on Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India to assert that the State is entitled to exercise caution in cases involving corruption.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous examination of the legal and factual matrix. It observed that while the State has a legitimate interest in preventing misuse of passports by persons involved in serious crimes, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or on the basis of stale, unproven allegations.
"The pendency of an FIR, even for serious offences, does not ipso facto disentitle a citizen from exercising a fundamental right. The law requires a balance between public interest and individual liberty, and that balance cannot be tilted solely on the basis of untested allegations.
The Court noted that the charge-sheet in FIR No.1634 of 2007 was filed only after 17 years, and the investigation in FIR No.318 of 2007 had remained dormant for nearly two decades. The coordinate Bench’s stay order, which found no pre-summoning evidence and flagged the allegations as frivolous, was a critical indicator of the weakness of the prosecution’s case.
The Court further held that the Special Judge, who was seized of the criminal proceedings, had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a passport application. The authority to grant or refuse a passport lies exclusively with the Passport Authority under the Passport Act, 1967, and its Rules. The Special Judge’s order was therefore ultra vires.
The Court also took note of the broader administrative context - the State’s failure to comply with its own directions in Manish Kumar Singh regarding timely investigation of corruption cases - and observed that the petitioner was being penalized for systemic delays not of his making.
"To deny a passport on the basis of allegations that have lain dormant for 18 years, without any trial, conviction, or even a prima facie finding, is to punish the individual for the State’s inaction. This cannot be countenanced under the rule of law."
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court set aside the order dated 20.09.2025 rejecting the NOC. The Regional Passport Authority, Bareilly, is directed to issue or renew the petitioner’s passport in accordance with the prescribed procedure within four weeks. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, with instructions to conclude the proceedings of the High-Powered Committee and frame comprehensive guidelines for timely investigation of corruption cases.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Passport Denial Requires More Than Mere Allegations
- Practitioners must challenge passport denials based solely on pending FIRs, especially where investigations are delayed beyond reasonable limits.
- The burden shifts to the State to demonstrate a direct, proximate link between the alleged offence and the risk of misuse of the passport.
- A stay on criminal proceedings by a High Court Bench is a strong indicium that the allegations lack prosecutorial merit.
Administrative Delays Cannot Be Used Against Citizens
- Courts will not permit the State to use its own administrative failures as grounds to restrict fundamental rights.
- Delay in filing charge-sheets or concluding investigations cannot be weaponized to deny civil liberties.
- Petitioners may invoke Article 21 and Article 14 to challenge arbitrary administrative decisions rooted in institutional negligence.
Jurisdictional Boundaries Must Be Respected
- Special Judges under the Prevention of Corruption Act have no authority to decide passport applications.
- Any order issued by a criminal court on a passport matter is void for lack of jurisdiction.
- Legal practitioners must raise jurisdictional objections at the earliest opportunity in such cases.
