Introduction: Travel, Liberty, and the Weight of a Criminal Case
In modern India, possession of a passport is no longer a mere travel convenience. It is often essential for livelihood, education, business, medical treatment, and personal liberty. Yet, the law has consistently maintained that the right to travel abroad, though flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution, is not absolute. It remains subject to statutory regulation, principally under the Passports Act, 1967.
The Supreme Court’s decision in SLP (Civil) No. 17769 of 2025, Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr. brings renewed clarity to a recurring and contentious issue.
Can a passport authority refuse issuance or renewal of a passport merely because a criminal case is pending, even when courts have granted limited permissions?
The ruling does not introduce new law. Instead, it restores statutory discipline in an area increasingly clouded by inconsistent judicial directions and administrative uncertainty.
Factual Background: How the Dispute Arose
The petitioner, Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, was an Indian citizen holding a valid passport that expired in the year 2023. At the time of expiry, criminal proceedings were pending against him, arising from a prosecution initiated by a central investigating agency.
Upon applying for renewal, the application was not processed in the ordinary course. The passport authority invoked Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which empowers refusal of passport issuance where criminal proceedings are pending before a court in India.
The petitioner relied on certain judicial orders passed during the pendency of the criminal case, which permitted him to take steps for passport renewal subject to conditions. However, the passport authority declined to issue a full-term passport. This resulted in writ proceedings and ultimately an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Central Legal Issue
The controversy before the Supreme Court revolved around a deceptively simple but legally significant question.
Is renewal of an expired passport a continuation of an existing right, or is it equivalent to fresh issuance attracting statutory disqualifications under the Passports Act?
Connected to this were ancillary issues including whether interim judicial permissions override statutory bars, whether pendency of a criminal case automatically disables passport renewal, and the extent to which Article 21 can dilute legislative restrictions.
Statutory Scheme: The Passports Act, 1967
A proper understanding of the judgment requires returning to the statutory framework.
Under the Passports Act, 1967, Section 5 governs applications for passports, while Section 6 specifies grounds on which issuance or renewal may be refused.
Section 6(2)(f) is pivotal. It mandates refusal of passport issuance where criminal proceedings are pending before a court in India, unless the concerned court grants specific permission. The provision is couched in mandatory language, leaving little scope for administrative discretion.
This statutory command formed the backbone of the Supreme Court’s reasoning.
Renewal vs Issuance: The False Dichotomy
A recurring argument in such cases is that renewal stands on a different footing from fresh issuance. The Supreme Court categorically rejected this distinction.
- Once a passport expires, it ceases to have legal existence.
- Renewal after expiry is not a mechanical extension but a fresh exercise of statutory power.
- All eligibility conditions and disqualifications under the Act apply equally.
This reasoning effectively closes the door on attempts to bypass statutory restrictions by labeling an application as renewal rather than issuance.
Judicial Permissions vs Statutory Bar
The Court also examined the legal effect of judicial orders passed during criminal proceedings. The petitioner relied on court orders that permitted steps toward passport renewal.
The Supreme Court clarified that such permissions cannot override statutory mandates unless the court expressly authorizes issuance of a passport in clear terms. Administrative authorities remain bound by the statute and cannot infer permissions beyond what is expressly granted.
