Persons Facing Criminal Trial Must Obtain Court's Permission Even For Passport Renewal: Madras High Court Full Bench
A full bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that renewal or reissue of a passport should be considered in the same manner as a fresh issue, and prior permission from the court would be necessary in case of pendency of criminal case. The bench of Justice G Jayachandran, Justice S Srimathy, and Justice KK Ramakrishnan was answering a reference made to it by a single judge in view...
A full bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that renewal or reissue of a passport should be considered in the same manner as a fresh issue, and prior permission from the court would be necessary in case of pendency of criminal case.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran, Justice S Srimathy, and Justice KK Ramakrishnan was answering a reference made to it by a single judge in view of conflicting decisions by two division benches. The bench held as under,
“In fine, the question of reference is answered affirmatively that reissue / renewal of a passport has to be treated by the Passport Officer in the same manner as the issuance of a fresh passport. In other words, the rigor of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act subject to exemption under GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 and the instructions in OM dated 10.10.2019 will apply to all applicants either as a fresh application or renewal / reissue,”.
In the present case, the appellant, who was carrying on business in Colombo, was accused for offences under Sections 120B, 294(b), 406, 420 IPC. Though he applied for renewal of passport under the Tatkal scheme, his application was not processed considering the adverse Police Verification Report. The Regional Passport Officer sought for an explanation and the appellant appeared before the officer and explained. However, the Regional Passport Officer had not processed the application and thus the appellant approached the court.
The single judge took note of two conflicting division bench decisions. In the first order, the bench had directed the officer to re-issue passport without insisting on prior permission from the court where the criminal case was pending. In the second decision, the bench had held that prior permission from court, in which the passport applicant was facing trial, was mandatory for re-issuance of passport. Thus, the single judge framed the following question for consideration by a larger bench:
“Whether the re-issue/renewal of passport has to be treated by the Passport Officer in the same manner as the issuance of a fresh passport, or simpliciter a case of renewal”?
The full bench noted that the Passport Act was enacted to regulate the departure of citizens of India and other persons from India and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto. The court noted that Section 5 of the Passport Act dealt with application for passports, travel documents etc and orders thereon and Section 6 dealt with Refusal of Passports, travel documents etc. As per Section 6(f) of the act, Passport could be rejected if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.
The court also took into account a notification issued by the Ministry of External Affairs on August 25, 1993 which said that the issue or re-issue would be based on an order of court where the criminal case is pending. The court also noted that the Ministry had issued an Office Memorandum in 2019, which provided instructions to be adopted by the Passport Authorities while processing the passport applications in respect of applicants, who have criminal cases pending against them.
The court thus concluded that the restrictions contained in the Act apply not only to fresh applications but also for re-issuance and renewal. The court noted that a person facing criminal proceedings is not absolutely disentitled from getting a passport but it was subject to the permission of the criminal court where the case was pending.
“A passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a visa, subject to other laws and orders, to cross international borders. Right of a person, who is on bail or facing trial or pending appeal may actually to leave the country is subject to the permission of the criminal Court, which can grant or withhold permission, impose conditions, insist on undertakings, or refuse leave altogether,” the court said.
The court also clarified that “criminal proceedings pending” would mean the stage of taking cognisance of crime by the criminal court. In cases were FIR was registered, the court said that the Investigating Officer should furnish clearance mentioning the nature of the case and the stage of the investigation and it was for the Passport authority to decide the applications based on the police report.
In the present case, since a criminal case was pending against the applicant, the court directed him to get prior permission of the concerned court and submit the same along with his application.
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. AL. Kannan, for M/s. S. Meena
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, ASGI, assisted by Mr. K. Govindarajan, ASGI, for Mr. M. Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy, Mr. A. Thiruvadikumar, APP, assisted by Mr. K. Gnanasekaran, G.A., (Criminal Side)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
Case Title: Jawahar Rajan v The Regional Passport Officer and Another
Case No: WP(MD)No.26547 of 2025