Passport Renewal | Right to Travel Under Article 21 Prevails Over Pendency of Criminal Case : Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the right to hold a passport and travel abroad is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be denied merely due to the pendency of a criminal case. The judgment establishes that restrictions on passport renewal must be based on cogent reasons and proportional considerations, not automatic presumptions of flight risk, particularly for public representatives with no history of evading legal process.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly representing Gannavaram Assembly Constituency, was accused in Spl.S.C.No. 13 of 2024 for offences under Sections 143, 323, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case arose from alleged political rivalry, with the petitioner contending that the charges were false and motivated.

Procedural History

The petitioner’s passport expired on 22.11.2025. Upon applying for renewal on 10.10.2025, he discovered that court permission was required. The trial court, in Crl.M.P.No.2421 of 2025, rejected his request for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for passport renewal on 09.01.2026, citing the pendency of the criminal case as a ground for denial.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought to set aside the trial court’s order and secure permission for passport renewal for ten years, subject to conditions ensuring his presence during trial. He argued that as a public representative, there was no risk of absconding, and the denial violated his right to travel under Article 21.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether the pendency of a criminal case, without evidence of flight risk or misuse of liberty, justifies the denial of passport renewal under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner’s counsel argued that:

• The criminal case was politically motivated and lacked merit.
• The petitioner, as an elected public representative, had no history of evading legal process.
• The denial of passport renewal violated Article 21, which guarantees the right to travel subject to reasonable restrictions.
• The trial court failed to consider alternative safeguards, such as imposing conditions for renewal.

For the Respondent

The Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that:

• The petitioner was accused in a serious criminal case involving offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act.
• Granting passport renewal could prejudice the trial and enable the petitioner to evade justice.
• The trial court’s order was justified as a precautionary measure to ensure the petitioner’s presence during proceedings.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the interplay between the right to travel and the state’s interest in ensuring the accused’s presence during trial. It relied on the constitutional mandate of Article 21, which protects personal liberty, including the right to hold a passport and travel abroad, subject to reasonable restrictions.

"Mere pendency of a criminal case cannot, by itself, operate as an absolute bar for renewal of a passport, particularly when there is no material placed on record to show that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted to him and attempted to evade the process of law or violated any condition imposed by the Court."

The Court emphasized that the trial court’s order suffered from non-application of mind, as it failed to consider:

1. The petitioner’s status as a public representative with no history of absconding.
2. The absence of evidence suggesting a flight risk.
3. The availability of alternative safeguards, such as imposing conditions for renewal.

It held that the object of requiring court permission - to ensure the accused’s presence - could be achieved through proportional restrictions, such as requiring the petitioner to furnish an undertaking to appear before the trial court as and when required and seek prior permission for foreign travel.

The Verdict

The Court allowed the criminal petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2026. It directed the renewal of the petitioner’s passport for ten years, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner must furnish an undertaking to appear before the trial court as required.
2. He must seek prior permission before undertaking any foreign travel.
3. The trial court may impose additional conditions to ensure his presence during proceedings.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Right to Travel Cannot Be Automatically Denied

The judgment reinforces that Article 21 protects the right to travel, and restrictions on passport renewal must be justified by cogent reasons and proportionality. Practitioners should argue that:

• Mere pendency of a criminal case is insufficient to deny passport renewal.
• Courts must consider the accused’s profile, including their public standing and history of compliance with legal processes.
• Alternative safeguards, such as undertakings or conditions, should be explored before outright denial.

Conditions Over Denial

The Court’s approach underscores that proportionality is key when balancing individual rights and state interests. For similar cases:

• Prosecution must demonstrate specific risks, such as a history of evasion or strong evidence of flight risk.
• Defence counsel can cite this judgment to argue for conditional renewal instead of outright denial.
• Trial courts should impose tailored conditions, such as regular appearances or prior permission for travel, rather than blanket restrictions.

Public Representatives and Flight Risk

The judgment highlights that public representatives are less likely to abscond due to their accountability and visibility. Practitioners can use this precedent to argue that:

• Accused persons with public profiles or elected positions should not be presumed to be flight risks.
• The burden is on the prosecution to prove specific grounds for denying passport renewal, such as past violations or strong evidence of intent to evade trial.