A significant affirmation of personal liberty under the Indian Passport Act emerged when the Madhya Pradesh High Court permitted passport renewal for a convicted appellant seeking to undertake Haj pilgrimage, despite a pending criminal appeal. The judgment clarifies that mere pendency of an appeal does not automatically bar international travel, especially when custody has been served and humanitarian grounds are compelling.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Noorjahan, was convicted under Section 202 IPC for abetment of suicide and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000. She filed a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., which remains pending. During the pendency of this appeal, her existing passport expired. She applied for renewal to undertake the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca-Medina, a religious obligation under Islamic law.
Procedural History
- 2004: Criminal case initiated under Section 202 IPC
- 2006: Conviction and sentencing by Special Judge (NDPS), Indore
- 2006: Criminal appeal filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
- 2023: Earlier order by a coordinate bench granted passport renewal
- 2026: Passport renewal application rejected by Passport Authority citing pending appeal and Notification dated 25.08.1993
- 2026: Application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking court permission for passport issuance
Relief Sought
The appellant sought permission from the High Court to renew her passport under the Indian Passport Act, 1967, for the purpose of Haj pilgrimage, subject to conditions imposed by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Indian Passport Act, 1967, read with the Notification dated 25.08.1993, permits passport renewal during the pendency of a criminal appeal when the appellant has already served the sentence and seeks travel for a fundamental religious purpose.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the appellant had already undergone custody nearly equivalent to her sentence, rendering the punitive aspect of the conviction largely exhausted. Reliance was placed on the earlier coordinate bench order dated 30.11.2023, which had permitted passport renewal. It was contended that the right to undertake Haj pilgrimage is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution and that denial of passport renewal without judicial scrutiny violates the principle of proportionality and personal liberty.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed the prayer, asserting that Section 6(2) of the Indian Passport Act empowers the Passport Authority to refuse issuance or renewal if a criminal appeal is pending. It emphasized the binding nature of the 1993 Notification, which mandates prior court permission for passport issuance in such cases, to prevent potential flight risk or obstruction of justice.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that Section 6(2) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967, grants the Passport Authority discretionary power to refuse a passport when a criminal appeal is pending. However, it emphasized that this power is not absolute and must be exercised reasonably, in light of constitutional rights and equitable considerations.
"The mere pendency of an appeal does not ipso facto justify denial of a passport, particularly when the appellant has served the sentence and seeks travel for a religious obligation of profound personal significance."
The Court noted that the 1993 Notification is procedural, not prohibitive - it requires court permission, not automatic denial. It distinguished between preventive detention and post-conviction appellate status, observing that the appellant’s liberty interests under Article 21 must be balanced against state interests. The earlier order of the coordinate bench, which had already considered the facts and permitted renewal, carried persuasive weight. The Court also highlighted that the appellant had disclosed the pendency of the appeal in her application, demonstrating transparency and absence of intent to evade legal process.
The Verdict
The appellant prevailed. The Court held that passport renewal may be permitted during the pendency of a criminal appeal when the appellant has served the sentence, the purpose of travel is religious and fundamental, and there is no evidence of flight risk. The Passport Authority was directed to renew the passport for three years, subject to the condition that the appellant seek prior court permission before applying for a visa.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Passport Renewal Is Not Automatically Barred
- Practitioners must argue that Section 6(2) and the 1993 Notification require judicial discretion, not mechanical refusal
- Courts must evaluate individual circumstances: sentence served, purpose of travel, transparency, and proportionality
- Denial without reasoned analysis violates Article 21 and the principle of natural justice
Religious Travel Rights Are Constitutionally Protected
- Haj pilgrimage qualifies as a protected religious practice under Article 25
- Courts should treat such requests with heightened sensitivity, especially when custody has been served
- Denial based solely on pendency of appeal, without assessing humanitarian need, is legally unsustainable
Judicial Coordination and Precedent Matter
- Coordinate bench orders carry persuasive authority in similar factual matrices
- Courts should avoid contradictory rulings on identical issues involving personal liberty
- Applications under Section 528 BNSS provide a viable procedural route for urgent passport-related relief during appeals
