Man With Two Stayed Criminal Proceedings May Reapply For Short-Validity Passport, Karnataka HC Directs Consideration

In brief

The question

1. Whether pending criminal proceedings, particularly where further proceedings have been stayed, absolutely preclude issuance of a passport under the Passports Act, 1967.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh online application for an SVP.

It also directed

The Regional Passport Officer must consider it without insisting on fresh police verification, take the stay orders into account, and process it expeditiously; if the petitioner is otherwise eligible, an SVP may be issued subject to reasonable conditions.

The passport would be without prejudice to the prosecution if the stay is vacated; the petitioner must attend court when required and obtain leave of the concerned criminal court before leaving its jurisdiction, consistently with the bail conditions in C.C. No. 28178 of 2021.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the Regional Passport Office’s endorsement dated 23 August 2023 rejecting his passport application because criminal proceedings were pending against him.

p. 2 · ¶ 1

The proceedings comprised C.C. No. 28178 of 2021 and Criminal Case No. 611 of 2023; this Court had stayed further proceedings in both cases in separate criminal petitions.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2–3

The petitioner sought a fresh passport under the Ministry of External Affairs’ Official Memorandum dated 10 October 2019, relying in particular on its provision concerning applicants facing pending criminal proceedings.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4

The respondents maintained that the rejection followed the police verification report.

p. 4 · ¶ 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether pending criminal proceedings, particularly where further proceedings have been stayed, absolutely preclude issuance of a passport under the Passports Act, 1967.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 1–3, 7–9

ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration for a Short Validity Passport (SVP), and on what conditions.

pp. 4–7 · ¶ 4, 6, 8–10

03Law Applied

Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides a ground for refusing a passport where proceedings concerning an alleged offence by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India; the Court held that this provision does not impose a blanket prohibition and that pending proceedings do not, by themselves, foreclose consideration for an SVP.

pp. 3–6 · ¶ 4, 8

The Court also relied on G.S.R. 570(E), dated 25 August 1993, and Clause 3 of the Official Memorandum dated 10 October 2019, which contemplate relief for applicants facing criminal proceedings, including a short-validity passport subject to an undertaking and court order.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

It further relied on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Mr. Thomas P.M. v. Regional Passport Officer and Another, W.P. No. 5941 of 2026, dated 28 April 2026, concerning SVP relief in similar circumstances.

p. 5 · ¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420 Section 506 Section 384 Section 34 Section 448 Section 504

Passports Act, 1967 Section 6 Section 10

04Reasoning

The Court noted that further proceedings in both criminal cases had been stayed, keeping the prosecution proceedings in abeyance.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 7, 9

Applying its understanding of Section 6(2)(f) and the relevant memorandum, it concluded that the pending cases did not automatically bar passport relief.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8–10

However, the petitioner had no established right to a regular passport of full validity; the appropriate course was to permit consideration of an SVP, subject to lawful and reasonable conditions.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 8–10