Pending criminal case alone cannot block passport reissue after trial-court approval, Gauhati High Court rules

The petitioner applied to re-issue his passport after its pages were exhausted.

Police verification reported an adverse result because criminal proceedings in PRC No. 156/2023 were pending against him.

The petitioner obtained an order from the Trial Court stating that it had no objection to re-issue of his passport for six months, subject to conditions.

The passport application remained under process, and the Regional Passport Office had re-initiated police verification.

The petitioner sought a direction for re-issue of the passport.

The Trial Court’s order and the applicable statutory and administrative framework were considered by the High Court.

Whether the pendency of criminal proceedings under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 prevented re-issue of the petitioner’s passport despite the Trial Court’s no-objection order

Whether the Passport Issuing Authority could rely on an adverse police verification report concerning the pending case to refuse or delay re-issue

Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act provides a ground for refusing a passport where criminal proceedings are pending, but it is subject to the other provisions of the Act, including the Central Government’s exemption power under Section 22.

Under Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25 August 1993, a person facing criminal proceedings may obtain or renew a passport in accordance with the criminal court’s order, the notification’s validity-period conditions, and the applicant’s undertaking to appear before the court when required.

The Ministry’s 2019 Office Memorandum states that a court’s no-objection certificate or permission, together with the required undertaking, may prevail over an adverse police report.

Applying Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, [2025] 12 SCR 1307, the Court noted that the notification does not require a blanket, journey-specific permission as a precondition to passport re-issue; the passport authority must respect the criminal court’s decision to leave travel open to judicial supervision.

The Trial Court, with the criminal proceedings before it, had expressly recorded no objection to re-issue of the passport for six months and required the petitioner to execute a bond to appear on each date of hearing.

The High Court held that, subject to confirmation that no other criminal proceedings were pending, Section 6(2)(f) did not prevent the Passport Issuing Authority from processing the application in accordance with that order.

An adverse police report concerning PRC No. 156/2023 could not override the Trial Court’s order.

The authority was, however, entitled to verify whether other proceedings existed and to require the petitioner’s reply, the relevant court orders, and the prescribed undertaking.

The petitioner was directed to respond to the 7 March 2025 objection letter within 15 days, providing the current status of PRC No. 156/2023, certified copies of the revisional and Trial Court orders, and the prescribed undertaking.

The Passport Issuing Authority must determine within 15 days whether any other proceedings bring the application within Section 6(2)(f); if not, it must process the re-issue for the six-month period specified by the Trial Court and complete the process within a further month.

Any proposed travel abroad remains subject to the petitioner obtaining permission from the Trial Court.