The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that the denial of a passport renewal based solely on an adverse police report violates fundamental rights under Article 21 and the principles of natural justice. This judgment clarifies that pending criminal proceedings, without a conviction, cannot be treated as a conclusive bar to the exercise of a constitutional right to travel.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Prajeesh Chandran P V, applied for renewal of his passport bearing No. K 5683541, which was due to expire. His application was rejected by the Regional Passport Office on the grounds of an adverse police report generated from Crime No. 206/2023 filed at Sasthamcotta Police Station. The report stemmed from a criminal complaint pending before a Judicial First-Class Magistrate, with a chargesheet filed as C.C. No. 167/2024. No conviction had been secured, and the matter remained sub judice.
Procedural History
- October 2023: Crime No. 206/2023 registered against the petitioner at Sasthamcotta Police Station
- October 2025: Petitioner submitted online passport renewal application (Receipt No. 25-1064486963)
- November 2025: Regional Passport Office rejected renewal citing adverse police report
- December 2025: Petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No. 46570 of 2025 before the High Court of Kerala
- January 2026: Court heard arguments and delivered judgment
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the 2nd respondent to renew his passport without delay, arguing that the adverse police report was not a valid ground for denial under the Passports Act, 1967, and that his right to travel under Article 21 was being arbitrarily infringed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an adverse police report, arising from a pending criminal case without conviction, can legally justify the denial of a passport renewal under the Passports Act, 1967, and whether such denial violates the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to argue that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21. He contended that an adverse police report, without any finding of guilt, cannot be treated as a statutory ground for refusal under Section 6 of the Passports Act. He further cited State of Kerala v. T.P. Somanathan to assert that administrative action based on unproven allegations violates natural justice. The petitioner emphasized that the chargesheet was merely a procedural step and did not establish culpability.
For the Respondent
The Respondent, represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India, argued that the Passport Authority is statutorily empowered to consider police reports under Rule 6(2)(c) of the Passports Rules, 1980. The State contended that the existence of a pending criminal case involving serious allegations justified precautionary refusal to avoid potential misuse of the passport. It relied on Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India to suggest that administrative discretion must be exercised cautiously in matters of national interest.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Passports Act, 1967, and held that while the Passport Authority may consider police reports, it cannot treat them as conclusive or dispositive. The Court emphasized that presumption of innocence remains inviolable until proven guilty. The mere existence of a chargesheet does not equate to a ground for denial under Section 6 of the Act.
"An adverse police report, without any adjudication or conviction, cannot be the sole basis for denying a fundamental right. To do so would be to punish before trial."
The Court distinguished Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India, noting that case involved a conviction and ongoing appeal, whereas here, the matter was still pending trial. The Court further held that the Passport Authority’s duty is to assess risk based on objective criteria, not to act as a proxy for criminal courts. The refusal to renew the passport without a reasoned, individualized assessment violated procedural fairness under Article 14 and Article 21.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had provided documentary evidence of employment in Malta, indicating legitimate travel purposes, and that no evidence of flight risk or criminal intent had been established.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that an adverse police report, without a conviction or specific finding of risk, cannot be the sole ground for denying passport renewal. The Court directed the Regional Passport Office to decide the renewal application within three weeks, in accordance with law, and imposed a condition that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior court permission.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Adverse Police Reports Are Not Automatic Bars
- Practitioners must challenge passport denials based solely on pending cases, citing Maneka Gandhi and this judgment
- The burden shifts to the State to demonstrate concrete risk, not merely allege pendency of proceedings
- Administrative orders must be reasoned and specific, not boilerplate references to "adverse police report"
Presumption of Innocence Applies to Administrative Decisions
- Even in matters of passport issuance, the presumption of innocence is constitutionally binding
- Authorities cannot substitute judicial determination with administrative suspicion
- Pending chargesheets are procedural, not substantive, grounds for denial
Procedural Fairness Is Non-Negotiable
- Applicants must be given opportunity to respond to adverse material before denial
- Failure to provide notice or hearing renders the order voidable
- Courts will intervene where administrative discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously
