The Supreme Court has directed the Union of India and the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata, to re-issue an ordinary passport to an appellant for a normal period of ten years, setting aside the orders of the Calcutta High Court which had refused relief due to pending criminal proceedings and a subsisting conviction.
The Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih, observed that the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, is not absolute when the concerned criminal courts have granted “no objection” for renewal and retained control over the individual’s foreign travel.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, is an accused in a case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) regarding alleged extortion and funding of a proscribed organisation in Jharkhand. He is facing trial before the NIA Court, Ranchi, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Separately, the appellant was convicted in a CBI coal block case by a Special Judge in New Delhi and sentenced to four years imprisonment. The Delhi High Court suspended his sentence in May 2022, subject to the condition that he shall not leave the country without permission.
The appellant’s passport expired on August 28, 2023. He approached the NIA Court, Ranchi, which granted “no objection” for the renewal of his passport on July 10, 2023, subject to conditions, including the immediate re-deposit of the passport after renewal. The Delhi High Court also granted “no objection” on September 4, 2023, for the renewal of the passport for ten years.
However, the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata, refused to issue a regular ten-year passport. The authorities relied on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated August 25, 1993, arguing that unless the criminal court expressly permits departure from India for a specific period, the exemption under the notification does not apply.
The appellant challenged this refusal before the Calcutta High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, and the Division Bench affirmed the dismissal on April 4, 2025, holding that the bar under Section 6(2)(f) operated in view of the pending proceedings and that the Writ Court could not act as an executing court for orders passed by other High Courts or Trial Courts.
Arguments and Legal Issue
The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Passport Authority was justified in declining to re-issue a passport for ten years due to pending criminal proceedings, despite the “no objection” granted by the competent courts.
The respondents contended that under Notification G.S.R. 570(E), an applicant is exempted from the bar under Section 6(2)(f) only if the court specifies a period for the passport’s issue or permits travel. Since the NIA Court granted permission only for the “limited purpose of renewal” and did not authorise travel, they argued the statutory bar continued.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court rejected the restrictive interpretation adopted by the Passport Authority and the Calcutta High Court. The Court observed that “Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation.”
On Section 6(2)(f) and Notification G.S.R. 570(E)
The Bench analysed the scheme of the Passports Act, noting that Section 6(2)(f) is subject to Section 22, under which Notification G.S.R. 570(E) was issued. The Court stated:
“What the notification does not do is to create a new substantive bar beyond Section 6(2)(f), or to insist that the criminal court must, in every case, grant a prior blanket permission to ‘depart from India’ for specified dates as a jurisdictional precondition to the very issue or re-issue of a passport.”
The Court held that the notification does not compel a criminal court to authorise a particular journey. Instead, it allows renewal while the court retains control over instances of travel.
“Where, as here, the conditions of bail already stipulate that the appellant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned, and the same court then grants no objection to renewal of the passport without relaxing that condition, the requirement that departure from India shall be subject to judicial permission is built into the very terms of the exemption.”
On the Refusal by Passport Authority
The Court criticised the “speculative apprehension” of the authorities regarding misuse of the passport. It clarified the distinction between holding a passport and travelling abroad:
“To refuse renewal on the speculative apprehension that the appellant might misuse the passport is, in effect, to second-guess the criminal courts’ assessment of risk and to assume for the passport authority a supervisory role which the statute does not envisage.”
On Subsisting Conviction
Regarding the conviction in the CBI case, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI (2021), noting that the refusal of a passport under Section 6(2)(f) relates to pending trials. Once there is a conviction, the matter falls under Section 6(2)(e). However, since the Delhi High Court had suspended the sentence and granted no objection for a ten-year renewal, the conviction could not be a ground for refusal.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court.
The Court directed the respondents to “re-issue an ordinary passport to the appellant for the normal period of ten years from the date of issue” within four weeks.
The Court imposed the following conditions:
- The passport shall remain subject to all existing and future orders passed by the NIA Court, Ranchi, and the Delhi High Court.
- The appellant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court concerned.
- The appellant shall deposit the passport in the court as and when directed.
The Court clarified that its order does not curtail the powers of the passport authority to impound or revoke the passport under Section 10 if warranted by future orders or developments.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India & Anr.
- Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ……. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 17769 of 2025)
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1476
- Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih
