Topic
Passport renewal in India is governed by the Passports Act, 1967, and courts have consistently held that pendency of criminal cases does not automatically bar renewal unless specific conditions under Section 6(2)(f) or Section 10 are met.
The Madras HC held that a minor’s Indian citizenship is not lost when a parent acquires foreign citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and directed the passport office to renew the minor’s passport within three months.
The Punjab and Haryana HC held that surrender of a passport under bail does not block its renewal, upholding Article 21 liberty. It directed the trial court to allow renewal with suitable safeguards, aiding those under similar bail conditions.
Even with ECIR proceedings, the Calcutta High Court allowed a ten-year passport renewal where the applicant satisfied the Section 22 exemption, curbing the blanket one-year limit of Notification GSR 570(E). The ruling aids individuals under investigation seeking longer-valid passports.
The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the 10.10.2019 Office Memorandum governing passport renewals, overturning the Allahabad High Court’s finding that it conflicted with statutory law. This ruling affirms that administrative guidelines, when aligned with government policy and not contrary to statute, remain enforceable - directly impacting thousands of applicants facing delayed renewals nationwide.
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the mere pendency of criminal charges, without conviction or evidence of flight risk, cannot override the fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21. This sets a critical precedent for citizens facing untried allegations, ensuring passport renewal cannot be weaponized as administrative punishment.
Punjab & Haryana HC rules that restricting passport renewal to one year due to delayed criminal proceedings violates the right to livelihood under Article 21, especially when the accused has not misused bail and has strong ties in India. The court emphasized that procedural inertia cannot override fundamental rights.
Gujarat High Court holds that accused persons granted anticipatory bail are entitled to passport renewal for 10 years under the Passport Rules, 1980, overriding the one-year limit under GSR Notification 570(E). The ruling underscores that travel restrictions must be explicitly imposed by a trial court, not presumed.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot justify denying a 10-year passport renewal under the Passports Act, provided the applicant complies with court-imposed conditions such as seeking prior permission before international travel. This sets a critical precedent for safeguarding the right to mobility under Article 21, even for individuals facing pending charges, as long as judicial safeguards are respected.
Madras High Court rules that passport denial under Section 6 of the Passports Act requires pending criminal proceedings before a court, not just an FIR. The judgment mandates strict adherence to statutory grounds, impacting passport applicants facing police investigations without formal charges.
Telangana High Court rules that passport renewal cannot be denied solely due to a pending criminal case under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967. The court mandates that the trial court must issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) within one week, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and preventing arbitrary denial of passport services.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that passport renewal cannot be denied solely based on pending criminal proceedings. Authorities must evaluate applications on merit, ensuring procedural safeguards and enforceable conditions under Article 21. This sets a precedent for balancing individual rights with administrative discretion in passport issuance.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that passport renewal cannot be denied solely based on a pending FIR; Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act mandates court cognizance before restricting travel rights under Article 21. This clarifies that administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily block passports during police investigations, ensuring procedural fairness for applicants facing criminal allegations.
Kerala High Court rules that accused individuals pending final report under BNSS are entitled to ten-year passport renewal unless a court order explicitly restricts it. The judgment underscores the right to overseas employment and personal liberty, directing passport authorities to comply unless specific judicial limitations exist.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a custodial parent may renew a minor's passport without the non-responsive parent's consent when denial would block the child's participation in an international sporting event. The judgment affirms that procedural rigidity must yield to the child's welfare under Article 21, setting a precedent for minors in competitive sports facing bureaucratic delays due to absent or uncooperative parents.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that passport renewal can be denied under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, if the applicant is evading pending criminal proceedings in India. The court emphasized that police verification reports citing pending FIRs are decisive, reinforcing the state's authority to restrict travel rights to ensure trial compliance.