The Allahabad High Court has prima facie observed that passport authorities cannot refuse renewal or reissue of a passport merely because a criminal case is pending against the applicant, noting that possession of a passport and permission to travel abroad are distinct issues. A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla issued an interim mandamus requiring the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, to consider the passport application of petitioner Mohd. Aftab in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India.
The Court observed that a passport is essentially a civil document and that the stage of issuing a passport is different from the stage at which a person facing criminal proceedings actually seeks permission to leave India.
Background
The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, was withholding his passport because two criminal cases were pending against him.
The first case, Case Crime No. 32 of 2024, was registered at Police Station Kareli, Prayagraj, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 504, 506 and 307 of the IPC. According to the petitioner, it was a no-injury case involving false implication, and he had already been granted bail.
The second case, Case Crime No. 10 of 2024, was registered under Sections 147, 387, 447, 323 and 427 IPC at the same police station. Proceedings in that matter had been challenged before the High Court through an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court had earlier, on December 18, 2025, stayed further proceedings after prima facie finding the dispute to be civil in nature.
Passport Does Not Automatically Confer Right to Travel Abroad
Examining the issue, the Bench drew a distinction between holding a passport and actually travelling outside India.
The Court noted that obtaining a passport does not automatically enable its holder to cross international borders. A person must still secure the necessary visa and comply with immigration requirements.
It further observed that where a person facing criminal proceedings proposes to travel abroad, the police or prosecuting agency may approach the competent criminal court and seek surrender of the passport or other restrictions to prevent departure from India.
The criminal court, depending on the circumstances, may permit foreign travel subject to conditions or may refuse permission altogether.
The Bench observed:
“The issue of a passport is not that stage, when the petitioner is endeavoring to travel abroad. The passport is essentially a civil document to which a citizen is entitled under the law and it is prima facie no business of the passport authorities to deny a passport on the ground that a criminal case is pending.”
The Court clarified that the position could be different where an applicant suppresses the pendency of criminal proceedings in the passport application, but recorded that the case before it did not involve such suppression.
Supreme Court Ruling in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, observing that refusal to renew or reissue a passport merely because a criminal case is pending prima facie appeared contrary to the law laid down in that ruling.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench highlighted:
“It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport and the act of travelling abroad.”
The Supreme Court had explained that whether a person on bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal court, which can grant or refuse permission, impose conditions or require undertakings. It had also held that refusing renewal merely on a speculative apprehension that a passport could be misused would amount to the passport authority assuming a supervisory role not contemplated by law.
The Supreme Court had further disapproved treating Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act as an absolute bar whenever criminal proceedings remain pending, while ignoring the statutory exemption mechanism under Section 22 and GSR 570(E).
Union Relies on Earlier Allahabad High Court Decision
During the hearing, Central Government Counsel Anupama Parashar relied on the Allahabad High Court’s earlier Division Bench judgment in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India and others.
The Bench said that ordinarily, if it disagreed with the earlier coordinate Bench ruling, the matter might require reference to a larger Bench. However, it found such a course unnecessary because the Supreme Court’s subsequent judgment in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal had been delivered after Pawan Kumar Rajbhar.
Interim Mandamus to Regional Passport Officer
The High Court admitted the writ petition and granted two weeks to the respondents to file counter affidavits. The matter was adjourned to September 30, 2026.
On the petitioner’s stay application, the Court issued notice and directed the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, through an interim mandamus to consider the petitioner’s passport application while keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal.
Alternatively, the Passport Officer was directed to show cause through a counter affidavit by the next date as to why the interim mandamus should not be made absolute.
The Registrar (Compliance) was also directed to communicate the order to the Regional Passport Officer through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, within 24 hours.
Case Details
Case Title: Mohd. Aftab v. Union of India and others
Case No.: Writ-C No. 36603 of 2026
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla
Date: September 14, 2026
