The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the right to hold a passport and travel abroad is a fundamental facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Setting aside a central government order to impound the passport of a real estate executive, the court emphasized that any state action infringing upon this right must be reasonable and adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice.
The core legal issue was whether the non-disclosure of a First Information Report (FIR) at the time of passport renewal justifies the impounding of the document, especially when the court has not yet taken cognisance of the matter. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impounding orders issued by the passport authorities and the subsequent appellate rejection.
The petitioner, Yogesh Raheja, the erstwhile Director of Raheja Developers, applied for the renewal of his passport in October 2024. On January 17, 2025, the authorities passed an order to impound his passport on the grounds that he had failed to disclose the pendency of an FIR against him. Mr. Raheja challenged this decision before the appellate authority, but his appeal was rejected on March 25, 2025. He subsequently approached the Delhi High Court seeking judicial intervention.
Represented by Sandeep Kapur, Senior Partner at Karanjawala & Co., the petitioner argued that the mere registration of an FIR does not constitute the “pendency of criminal proceedings” as defined by the Ministry of External Affairs’ own 2019 office memorandum. The counsel contended that for the purpose of passport issuance or renewal, proceedings are only considered pending once a court of competent jurisdiction has taken cognisance of the offence.
The respondents (the passport authorities) maintained that the non-disclosure of the FIR was a valid ground for impounding the document under the existing regulatory framework.
Upon reviewing the timeline, the court observed a significant discrepancy in the authorities’ reasoning. While the passport was impounded in January 2025 for “pending proceedings,” the court of competent jurisdiction only took cognisance of the FIR in February 2025—one month after the impounding order was already issued.
Justice Kaurav highlighted the constitutional importance of the document, stating:
“The right to hold a passport and to travel abroad is an integral facet of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It follows that any State action impinging upon the right to hold a passport must satisfy the test of reasonableness and must be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.”
The court further noted that the reasons assigned by the authorities failed to withstand legal scrutiny because, at the time of the application and the subsequent impounding, there were no “pending” criminal proceedings in the eyes of the law.
Concluding that the decision of the authorities was unsustainable, the court set aside the orders dated January 17, 2025, and March 25, 2025. The ruling restores the petitioner’s right to hold his passport, reinforcing the legal standard that administrative actions against personal liberty must be grounded in actual legal facts rather than premature assumptions of criminality.
