Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-015096-015096 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 34940/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the Division Bench judgment dated 04.04.2025 in APOT No. 215 of 2024 and Single Judge order dated 15.05.2024 in WPO No. 352 of 2024 (Calcutta High Court) |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Constitutional (Passports Act interpretation) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a pending criminal proceeding under Section 6(2)(f) precludes renewal or re-issue of an expired passport when criminal courts have granted “no objection” to renewal under GSR 570(E) and imposed conditions on foreign travel |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Conjoint reading of Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22 of the Passports Act; the scope and conditions of notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993; Office Memorandum No. VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019; constitutional guarantees under Article 21. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Passport Authorities and all subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts considering passport renewal in criminal matters |
| Overrules | Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench judgment in APOT No. 215 of 2024 and Single Judge order in WPO No. 352 of 2024 |
| Distinguishes | Calcutta High Court’s interpretation equating “permission to renew” with a one-time trip authorization |
| Follows | Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI (2021 SCC OnLine SC 3549) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that Section 6(2)(f) is not an absolute bar to renewal when the applicant falls within the exemption in GSR 570(E).
- Confirms that judicial permissions for renewal, coupled with conditions on foreign travel, satisfy the statutory requirement without specifying a single travel period.
- Holds that re-issue of an expired passport is governed by Sections 5 and 6 and remains subject to GSR 570(E) exemption.
- Emphasizes the distinction between possession of a passport and the right to depart, leaving travel regulation to criminal courts.
- Affirms that an existing conviction attracting Section 6(2)(e) cannot be used to uphold a bar under Section 6(2)(f).
- Reinforces constitutional mandates under Article 21: restrictions on liberty must be proportionate and rational.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Scheme: Sections 5–8 of the Passports Act prescribe application, issuance, duration, and extension, subject to refusal grounds in Section 6.
- Exhaustive Grounds: Section 6(2)(f) bars issuance when “proceedings…are pending,” but is qualified by “other provisions,” including Section 22.
- Exemption Power: Section 22 empowers the Central Government to exempt under notification GSR 570(E), which permits passport issuance/renewal if a criminal court order and undertaking exist.
- Notification GSR 570(E): Structures validity periods—court-specified or default one-year passports—without mandating a one-time trip license.
- OM 10.10.2019: Administrative instruction to apply GSR 570(E) strictly; emphasizes reading multiple court orders together.
- Judicial Permissions: Both Delhi High Court and NIA Court granted conditional renewals, adequately safeguarding court-supervised presence.
- Proportionality: Absolute denial of renewal despite court permissions is disproportionate to Article 21 rights.
- Conviction vs. Pendency: A conviction triggers Section 6(2)(e), not (f); the Delhi High Court had addressed conviction and still authorized ten-year renewal.
- Passport Authority’s Role: Task is to recognize the applicant’s exempted status under GSR 570(E) and set validity; not to demand detailed trip schedules at renewal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- GSR 570(E) exempts pending-case applicants once courts grant “no objection.”
- Both criminal courts allowed renewal with conditions, satisfying statutory aims.
- Section 6(2)(f) is qualified by Section 22 and must yield to judicial orders.
- Denial of a valid passport infringes the constitutional right to travel under Article 21.
Respondents
- Section 6(2)(f) is an absolute bar until criminal proceedings conclude.
- Notification GSR 570(E) requires specific departure permission for defined dates.
- NIA Court only permitted passport for renewal, not foreign travel; no substantive trip authorization.
- Renewed passport must be refused under Section 6(2)(f) absent explicit court leave to depart.
Factual Background
The appellant, accused in NIA-extortion and CBI coal block offences, saw his passport expire on 28.08.2023. The NIA Court, Ranchi, and the Delhi High Court each granted “no objection” to passport renewal for ten years but retained conditions that he must not depart India without their prior permission and must re-deposit the passport. The Kolkata RPO declined renewal under Section 6(2)(f), and the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition and appeal, prompting the Supreme Court appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 5–6: Issuance/refusal criteria; exhaustive grounds for refusal including pending proceedings.
- Sections 7–8: Duration and extension of passports; renewal subject to original issuance provisions.
- Section 9: Conditions/forms of passports.
- Section 10: Impounding/revocation powers for pending proceedings.
- Section 22 and GSR 570(E): Exemption from Section 6(2)(f) with judicial order and undertaking; validity tied to court order or default periods.
- OM 10.10.2019: Administrative guidance to apply GSR 570(E) strictly and to harmonize multiple court orders.
Procedural Innovations
- Recognises re-issue of an expired passport under Section 5 read with Section 6(2)(f) and GSR 570(E).
- Validates reading of multiple court orders together to determine exempted status.
- Clarifies passport authority’s limited supervisory role vis-à-vis judicial permissions.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overturns Calcutta High Court’s absolute-bar interpretation
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI (2021 SCC OnLine SC 3549)