Pending criminal proceedings do not bar passport renewal, subject to trial court permission for foreign travel.

The Petitioner held a passport (No. M1021617) which expired on August 17, 2024

He applied for renewal on December 1, 2025

At the time of application, a criminal case (No. 13236 of 2025) arising from FIR No. C.R No. 1-11192002240415 of 2024 was pending against him, though he had been granted regular bail on June 19, 2024

The Regional Passport Office (RPO) refused the renewal and issued a closure report on March 12, 2026, on the grounds that the Petitioner had not obtained specific permission from the concerned Trial Court

The Petitioner challenged this action as illegal and unconstitutional under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Passport Authority can legally insist upon the production of court permission as a prerequisite for the renewal or re-issuance of a passport when a criminal case is pending

2. Whether the Court should direct the renewal of the passport for a specific period of validity despite the pendency of criminal proceedings

The Court applied Section 6(2)(f) and Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, alongside the GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25th August 1993

This notification exempts citizens with pending criminal cases from the restrictions of Section 6(2)(f), provided they produce court orders; it mandates passport issuance for one year if no specific period is stated by the court

The Court further relied on the persuasive precedent of the Bombay High Court in Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 361 of 2014), which clarified that the authority to restrict travel abroad vests solely with the Trial Court, not the Passport Authority

The Court reasoned that there was an inherent ambiguity in the interplay between the Passports Act, the Rules, and GSR Notification 570(E) regarding the renewal process during pending litigation

Adopting the reasoning in Narendra K. Ambwani, the Court held that Passport Authorities do not possess the statutory power to determine whether an accused person has a right to travel; that jurisdiction is reserved for the Trial Court, which may impose conditions upon a travel application

The Court found that while the RPO is bound to renew the passport as per the Rules, the act of renewal is distinct from the permission to depart from India

Consequently, the RPO's insistence on prior court permission for the mere issuance/renewal of the document was deemed unsustainable

The Respondent Authority was directed to decide the renewal application and issue the passport for a period of three years within four weeks

The Court clarified that while the passport is to be issued, the Petitioner must file a separate application before the Trial Court to seek permission for any specific travel abroad, subject to any conditions that the Trial Court may deem fit