The Andhra Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the mere pendency of an FIR, without any charge sheet or court cognizance, cannot serve as a legal basis to deny, delay, or refuse passport renewal. This ruling reinforces the constitutional right to travel abroad under Article 21 and clarifies the limited scope of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, setting a critical precedent for citizens facing investigatory proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Seven writ petitions were filed by individuals whose applications for passport renewal were rejected or kept pending by the Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada, solely on account of pending criminal cases registered at the Guduru Police Station, Krishna District. The applicants had submitted their renewal applications under File No. VJ2076197302326 dated 07.01.2026. The Passport Authority refused processing on the ground that Crime No. 93/2023 was pending at the FIR stage, invoking Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.
Key Facts
- The petitioners are Indian citizens who applied for renewal of their passports under the Passports Act, 1967
- All applications were rejected or stalled based on the existence of an FIR, with no charge sheet filed as of the date of rejection
- No court has taken cognizance of any offence in any of the cases cited
- The criminal proceedings remain at the investigation stage, with no trial initiated
- The petitioners have not been convicted, charged, or even summoned by any court
- The Passport Authority did not consider the statutory exemption under G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993
Procedural History
- 07.01.2026: Petitioners submitted applications for passport renewal (File No. VJ2076197302326)
- 13.01.2026: Regional Passport Office issued notice rejecting renewal on grounds of pending FIR (Ref. No. SCN/1053297311/26)
- 2026 (early): Writ Petitions filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Nos. 5602, 5603, 5845, 5926, 7872, 7888, 3453 of 2026)
- 07.04.2026: Hearing conducted; matter taken up together by consent of parties
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that denial of passport renewal at the FIR stage is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, and contrary to the Passports Act, 1967. Cited judgments from Karnataka, Delhi, and Madras High Courts, as well as Supreme Court precedents affirming presumption of innocence and the right to travel.
Respondents (Union of India, Passport Authority): Contended that Section 6(2)(f) permits refusal of passport where criminal proceedings are pending, and that the pendency of an FIR qualifies as such proceedings.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- A declaration that the refusal of passport renewal on the basis of an uncharged FIR is illegal and unconstitutional
- A writ of mandamus directing the Passport Authority to process and renew their passports within two weeks
- Directions to consider applications afresh without reliance on pending FIRs
The Legal Issue
Can the Passport Authority lawfully refuse to renew a passport solely on the ground that an FIR has been registered against the applicant, when no charge sheet has been filed and no court has taken cognizance of the offence?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on multiple Supreme Court judgments to assert that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of Article 21. They emphasized that Section 6(2)(f) applies only when proceedings are pending before a criminal court, not during police investigation. They cited Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI, Sumit Mehta v. NCT of Delhi, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Satish Chandra Verma v. UOI, and Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. UOI to argue that mere FIR pendency does not equate to judicial proceedings. They further invoked G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, which permits passport issuance even if proceedings are pending, provided the applicant obtains a court order specifying validity or travel conditions.
For the Respondent
The Union of India contended that Section 6(2)(f) permits refusal of passport where criminal proceedings are pending, and that an FIR constitutes the initiation of such proceedings. They argued that the Passport Authority has a duty to prevent potential flight risk and that the provision is meant to be interpreted broadly to serve public interest.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed statutory and constitutional analysis of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. It held that the phrase "proceedings in respect of an offence... pending before a criminal court" clearly refers to judicial proceedings initiated after cognizance is taken by a court, not to the investigative stage. The Court observed that an FIR is merely a report of a cognizable offence and does not constitute a proceeding before a court.
"Section 6(2)(f) would not be applicable where the matter is still pending investigation and no charge sheet has been filed."
The Court further emphasized that the presumption of innocence under Article 21 and the principle of proportionality, as affirmed in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. UOI, require that restrictions on fundamental rights be narrowly tailored. It noted that treating an FIR as a bar to passport renewal converts a qualified restriction into a permanent disability, which is constitutionally impermissible.
The Court also examined the exemption mechanism under G.S.R. 570(E), which explicitly contemplates that passport issuance may proceed even during pendency of proceedings, provided the applicant secures a court order. The Passport Authority’s failure to consider this exemption was held to be arbitrary.
The Court distinguished the present situation from cases involving conviction or pending appeals, where the Apex Court has permitted passport issuance. Here, the absence of any judicial process rendered the refusal legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The writ petitions are allowed. The Passport Authorities are directed to process and renew the passports of the petitioners forthwith. In the event a charge sheet is filed after this order, the petitioners shall be required to obtain a court order specifying the validity period of the passport and any conditions on foreign travel. If no such order is obtained, the Passport Authority may revoke the passport after issuing due notice. There shall be no order as to costs. The renewal must be completed without further delay.
What This Means For Similar Cases
FIR Alone Is Not a Ground for Passport Denial
- Practitioners may now confidently challenge passport denials based solely on FIR pendency
- Passport authorities must distinguish between police investigation and judicial proceedings
- Applications rejected on FIR grounds alone must be reconsidered under this ruling
Court Orders Override Administrative Barriers
- G.S.R. 570(E) is now a binding operational mechanism, not a discretionary option
- Applicants facing pending charges must seek court orders for passport validity
- Passport authorities must accept such court orders as sufficient grounds for issuance
Constitutional Rights Trump Administrative Convenience
-
The right to travel abroad is not a privilege but a fundamental right under Article 21
-
Administrative policies cannot override constitutional guarantees without statutory backing
-
Any restriction must be proportionate, lawful, and subject to judicial oversight
-
Practitioners should advise clients to immediately file applications for passport renewal even if an FIR exists
-
Where charge sheets are filed, clients must promptly approach the trial court for a travel order
-
Denial letters citing only FIR pendency are legally invalid and subject to immediate writ remedy
