The Karnataka High Court has called on the Union Government to review its policy regarding short-validity passports and consider extending their duration for individuals facing pending criminal proceedings.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed central authorities to address the practical challenges stemming from the current framework, noting that passports issued for just one year generate a high volume of court litigation. The bench pointed out that foreign governments typically mandate that a passport retain at least six months of validity before granting a visa, making one-year passports impractical for travelers. Emphasizing that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, the court stated that this freedom cannot be curtailed simply due to non-issuance or delays in passport processing.
Passport Dispute of Bengaluru Resident
The court made these observations while hearing a petition filed by 53-year-old Bengaluru resident Ajith Ranka, whose passport renewal faced administrative delays due to an ongoing court case. Ranka was accused by his wife under Indian Penal Code Sections 498A for dowry harassment, 341 for wrongful restraint, and 354(B) for assault or criminal force to a woman.
After Ranka’s passport expired in 2023, his initial application for renewal was turned down on December 3, 2025. He subsequently approached the Karnataka High Court, which issued an order on December 16, 2025, directing passport officials to process his request for a short-validity passport. Consequently, the regional passport office renewed his travel document for a one-year period on February 2, 2026.
High Court Directs Conditional Response to Notice
When Ranka sought a second renewal upon expiry, passport authorities issued a notice on July 27 requiring him to present either proof of case clearance or formal travel permission from the trial court. In response, Ranka petitioned the High Court to set aside the notice and order an immediate renewal.
Partly allowing Ranka’s plea, the High Court directed him to respond to the July 27 notice by submitting an official undertaking confirming that he will travel abroad only after obtaining permission from the trial court overseeing his criminal case.
Constitutional Precedents Cited in Hearing
During the proceedings, Ranka’s counsel, Advocate Dhiraj A.K., cited key legal precedents to argue that holding a passport and traveling abroad are protected rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The defense referenced the landmark 1978 Supreme Court judgment in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, which established that foreign travel and holding a passport are core components of personal liberty. Additionally, counsel highlighted the apex court’s 2025 ruling in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India, which affirmed that a citizen’s right to move, travel, and pursue a livelihood subject to law remains an essential constitutional guarantee.
