The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that pending criminal proceedings cannot serve as a ground to deny renewal of a passport for a full ten-year term, provided the applicant complies with court-mandated conditions. This ruling reinforces the principle that fundamental rights, including freedom of movement, cannot be arbitrarily curtailed by administrative inaction rooted in unconnected criminal litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mukku Ugra Narasimha Reddy, a 51-year-old resident of Guntur, sought renewal of his passport under File No. vj2076639384324. His application was denied by the Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada, on the ground that criminal proceedings were pending against him in Case No. 424/2023 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur. The petitioner contended that the denial was contrary to a prior common order dated 07.04.2026 in W.P. No. 5769 of 2026 and batch, which had already laid down a clear framework for passport renewal in similar circumstances.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s current passport was due for renewal in early 2026.
- Criminal Case No. 424/2023, pending before the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Kandukur, relates to an alleged offence under the Indian Penal Code.
- The petitioner had previously filed W.P. No. 12789 of 2025 and was granted relief by order dated 09.04.2026.
- On 07.04.2026, the High Court passed a common order in W.P. No. 5769 of 2026 and batch, establishing a uniform procedure for passport renewal despite pending criminal cases.
- The Regional Passport Office refused to apply the same principle to the petitioner’s case, despite identical factual and legal circumstances.
Procedural History
- Early 2026: Petitioner applied for renewal of passport under File No. vj2076639384324.
- March 2026: Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada, rejected the application citing pending criminal proceedings.
- 07.04.2026: High Court issued a common order in W.P. No. 5769 of 2026 and batch, directing Passport Authorities to grant 10-year passports subject to specific conditions.
- 09.04.2026: Separate order issued in W.P. No. 12789 of 2025 affirming the same principle.
- 15.04.2026: Petitioner filed W.P. No. 11018/2026 seeking enforcement of the earlier orders.
- 24.04.2026: Hearing conducted before Justice Battu Devanand.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Counsel Medapati Santosh Reddy argued that the refusal to renew the passport violated the principles laid down in the common order dated 07.04.2026, which was binding on all Passport Authorities. He emphasized that the petitioner had not been convicted and that the criminal case was still at the trial stage. He further submitted that the Passport Act and Rules do not prohibit passport issuance solely on account of pending proceedings.
For the Respondents: The Government Pleader for Home and the Regional Passport Office did not contest the applicability of the earlier orders but acknowledged that the petitioner’s case was factually identical to those covered by the common order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Passport Officer to renew his passport for a full period of 10 years, in accordance with the orders dated 07.04.2026 and 09.04.2026. He also prayed for interim relief under Section 151 CPC to grant provisional renewal pending final disposal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 permit the denial of a 10-year passport renewal solely on account of pending criminal proceedings, absent a court order restricting travel or a statutory bar.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the binding precedent set by the High Court’s common order dated 07.04.2026 in W.P. No. 5769 of 2026 and batch, which held that pending criminal cases cannot be a standalone ground for denying passport renewal. He cited the Gazette Notification GSR No. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, which permits issuance of passports for ten years unless restricted by law. He argued that the Passport Authorities must act in accordance with judicial orders and cannot independently impose conditions beyond those specified by the court.
For the Respondent
The Respondent did not advance any substantive counter-argument. The Government Pleader conceded that the petitioner’s case was squarely covered by the earlier order and acknowledged that the refusal to renew was inconsistent with the High Court’s directive.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the matter was not novel and had already been authoritatively resolved in the common order dated 07.04.2026. The order had clearly laid down a balanced framework that respects both the rights of the individual and the interests of the criminal justice system. The Court emphasized that the Passports Act does not empower the Passport Authority to act as a quasi-judicial body to adjudicate criminal liability.
"The Passport Authorities to consider and pass appropriate orders on the applications submitted by the petitioners for issuance of passports or re-issuance of passports or renewal of passports, for a period of ten (10) years... without reference to the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners..."
The Court noted that the conditions imposed in the earlier order - including the undertaking not to leave the country without permission, submission of a certified copy of the undertaking to the Passport Office, and deposit of the renewed passport with the trial court - were sufficient safeguards against misuse. The Court held that the refusal to apply the same conditions to the petitioner was arbitrary and violative of the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court further held that administrative agencies must comply with judicial directions and cannot selectively apply rulings based on convenience or discretion. The petitioner’s case was indistinguishable from those covered by the earlier order, and therefore, the same relief must follow.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed the Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada, to renew the petitioner’s passport for a full period of 10 years under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, subject to the conditions laid down in the common order dated 07.04.2026. The petitioner shall submit an undertaking and affidavit before the trial court, obtain a certified copy within two weeks, and produce it to the Passport Office. The Passport Officer shall process the application within two weeks of receipt. The petitioner shall deposit the original renewed passport with the trial court and seek prior permission for foreign travel. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Passport Renewal Cannot Be Denied Solely on Pending Charges
- Practitioners may now cite this judgment to challenge denials of 10-year passports where no court has imposed a travel ban.
- Passport Authorities must apply uniform standards and cannot discriminate between applicants with identical pending cases.
Judicial Orders Bind Administrative Action
- Administrative agencies are bound by High Court directions issued in writ petitions, even if not formally enforced.
- Failure to comply with such orders may attract contempt proceedings or writ relief under Article 226.
Conditions Must Be Judicially Framed, Not Administrative
- Any restriction on passport issuance must be based on court-mandated conditions, not unilateral administrative policy.
- The burden of proof or suspicion cannot be shifted to the applicant; the onus remains on the state to justify restriction.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Applicants must strictly follow the two-step process: (1) file undertaking with trial court, (2) submit certified copy to Passport Office.
- Passport Officers must act within two weeks of receiving the certified undertaking - delay will be treated as non-compliance.
The Limits of Criminal Record in Civil Rights
- A pending criminal case, without conviction or court order, does not constitute a legal bar to passport issuance.
- This judgment reinforces that civil rights, including international mobility, are not suspended merely because of allegations.
