The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that the renewal of a passport may be lawfully denied when the applicant is actively avoiding pending criminal proceedings in India, even if residing abroad. The judgment underscores that the Passport Act, 1967, permits refusal based on police verification reports indicating ongoing criminal trials, particularly where the applicant demonstrates no intent to return to face justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rakesh Kumar, a resident of Kuwait for the past 15 years, applied for renewal of his expired passport, which had validity until 06.07.2025. The passport authorities declined the renewal on the basis of a police verification report from Police Station NRI Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur, which disclosed that an FIR under Section 498-A and 494 of the IPC (FIR No. 11 dated 11.05.2019) was pending against him. The appellant was not present in India during the registration of the FIR or subsequent proceedings.
Key Facts
- The appellant has been residing continuously in Kuwait since at least 2011.
- The FIR was registered on 11.05.2019 at Police Station NRI Hoshiarpur.
- The passport expired on 06.07.2025.
- The police verification report, submitted on 15.12.2025, recommended denial of passport renewal due to pending criminal proceedings.
- The appellant claims he had no knowledge of the FIR or proceedings against him.
- No application for quashing, discharge, or stay of the criminal proceedings has been filed by the appellant in India.
- The appellant has not returned to India since the registration of the FIR in 2019.
Procedural History
- 11.05.2019: FIR No. 11 registered under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC at Police Station NRI Hoshiarpur.
- 15.12.2025: Police verification report submitted to Passport Office recommending denial of renewal.
- 21.01.2026: Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition (CWP-24880-2025) seeking passport renewal.
- 28.02.2026: Letters Patent Appeal (LPA-738-2026) filed before the Division Bench.
- 17.03.2026: Judgment delivered by the Division Bench.
The Parties' Positions
Appellant: Argued that he was unaware of the FIR and had no opportunity to contest it. He contended that mere pendency of proceedings, without a conviction or arrest warrant, cannot justify denial of a passport. He emphasized his long-term residence abroad and claimed the denial violated his right to travel.
Respondent (Union of India): Maintained that the Passport Act, 1967, empowers authorities to refuse renewal if police verification indicates pending criminal proceedings. The report was not challenged by the appellant, and his consistent avoidance of the trial over six years justified the refusal.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought a direction to the passport authorities to renew his passport forthwith, arguing that the refusal was arbitrary and violative of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Legal Issue
Can the renewal of a passport be lawfully denied under the Passport Act, 1967, when the applicant is residing abroad and has been avoiding pending criminal proceedings in India for over six years, despite a police verification report recommending refusal?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the denial of passport renewal was disproportionate and violated the right to travel under Article 21. He argued that the FIR was not followed by a charge sheet or arrest warrant, and the appellant had no notice of the proceedings. He relied on the principle that passport issuance is a privilege, not a right, but insisted that denial must be based on concrete evidence of flight risk or criminality, not mere pendency. He further submitted that the appellant was willing to return to India if given a fair opportunity to defend himself.
For the Respondent
The Union of India, through Sr. Panel Counsel, submitted that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, permits refusal of a passport if the applicant is involved in pending criminal proceedings. The police verification report, a statutory requirement under the Passport Rules, 1980, was unchallenged and explicitly cited the pending FIR. The respondent emphasized that the appellant had not taken any steps in India to contest the FIR or seek bail, and had instead remained abroad for six years. The refusal was not punitive but preventive, to ensure the appellant does not evade trial by traveling internationally.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench examined the statutory framework under the Passport Act, 1967, particularly Section 6(2)(f), which permits refusal of a passport if the applicant is involved in pending criminal proceedings. The Court held that the police verification report is not a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement under Rule 8 of the Passport Rules, 1980. The report, which recommended denial, was not disputed by the appellant.
"Once, the presence of appellant is required in a criminal proceeding which is pending before the competent Court of law, which criminal proceedings he is avoiding, allowing renewal of passport so as to allow him to travel to the other countries rather than coming to India to face the trial, cannot be allowed."
The Court noted that the appellant had been offered two opportunities to return to India - first by the Single Judge, and again by the Division Bench - to face trial and then apply for renewal. Both offers were declined. The Court observed that this refusal demonstrated a clear intent to evade judicial process rather than seek redress.
The Bench distinguished this case from those where passport denial is based on unsubstantiated allegations or where the applicant is cooperating with authorities. Here, the appellant’s conduct over six years - absence from India, silence on the FIR, and refusal to return - constituted active avoidance. The Court held that the right to travel is not absolute and may be restricted where public interest in the administration of justice is at stake.
The Court further rejected the argument that the appellant’s lack of knowledge about the FIR justified renewal. It held that ignorance, especially when coupled with prolonged absence and inaction, does not absolve an individual from the consequences of pending criminal proceedings.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the refusal to renew the appellant’s passport, affirming that the police verification report and the appellant’s six-year avoidance of pending criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC justified the denial under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967. The appellant retains the right to apply for passport renewal upon returning to India and addressing the pending criminal case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Passport Renewal Cannot Override Pending Criminal Avoidance
- Practitioners must advise clients facing pending criminal proceedings in India that passport renewal abroad will likely be denied if they have not taken steps to contest the case or return to India.
- Mere absence from India or lack of notice of the FIR is insufficient to override a police verification report recommending denial.
- The burden shifts to the applicant to demonstrate active efforts to resolve the criminal matter, not just claim ignorance.
Police Verification Report Is a Decisive Statutory Factor
- The police verification report under the Passport Rules is not discretionary - it is mandatory and carries legal weight.
- If the report cites pending criminal proceedings, the passport authority is entitled to refuse renewal without further inquiry, unless the applicant challenges the report’s validity.
- Legal challenges to passport denial must first address the underlying criminal proceedings, not merely contest the administrative decision.
Right to Travel Is Conditional on Compliance with Judicial Process
- The right to travel under Article 21 is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) and statutory provisions like the Passport Act.
- Courts will not permit individuals to use international travel as a shield against criminal accountability.
- Applicants must choose: return to India to face trial, or forfeit the ability to renew a passport until the matter is resolved.
