The Supreme Court has held that pending criminal cases do not automatically bar citizens from obtaining or renewing passports, as this right falls under the inviolable right to life protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. It distinguished between court-supervised travel restrictions and outright passport denial, emphasising that the latter requires proportionality and judicial oversight rather than blanket refusal by passport authorities.A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Augustine George Masih said on December 19 that liberty under the Constitution “is not a gift of the State but its first obligation”, and includes the freedom to move, travel, and pursue livelihood and opportunity.The issue arose after passport authorities refused to renew an ordinary passport despite “no objection” orders from two criminal courts. The apex court has now set aside this refusal.What was the case?Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, an Indian citizen, was issued an ordinary passport in August 2013, valid for ten years. During this period, he was arraigned in a National Investigation Agency (NIA) case in Jharkhand, involving allegations of extortion and funding a proscribed organisation. Separately, he was convicted in a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) coal block case in Delhi and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, a sentence later suspended by the Delhi High Court pending appeal.In both matters, courts directed Agarwal to deposit his passport and barred him from leaving India without prior permission, conditions imposed to secure his presence during trial and appeal.As his passport neared expiry, Agarwal approached the NIA court in Ranchi, seeking permission for renewal. The court granted a no objection, released the passport solely for that purpose, required an undertaking that he would not travel abroad or seek a visa without permission, and ordered that the renewed passport be redeposited.Around the same time, the Delhi High Court, while retaining the travel restraint, held that there was no legal basis to deny renewal of the passport for the standard ten-year period.Despite these orders, the Regional Passport Office declined to issue a regular passport to Agarwal. The authorities relied on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, which mandates refusal where “proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India”. They took the position that the exemption notification applied only when a court had expressly permitted foreign travel for a specified period.Story continues below this adAgarwal challenged this refusal before the Calcutta High Court. His petition was, however, dismissed. The court held that since the NIA court had permitted renewal only for a limited purpose and had not authorised foreign travel, the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(f) continued to operate.What does the law say?The Passport Act 1967 sets out a structured scheme. Section 5 governs applications and requires the passport authority to issue or refuse a passport through a written order. Section 6 then specifies the only grounds on which refusal is permitted. One of those grounds, under Section 6(2)(e), operates after conviction and applies only where the offence involves moral turpitude and a sentence of not less than two years.The Act prescribes the normal 10-year validity of an ordinary passport but allows issuance for a shorter period (Section 7); permits extensions of such short-term passports (Section 8), and empowers authorities to impound or revoke a passport if criminal proceedings are pending, conditions are violated, or a court issues a travel prohibition (Section 10)Section 22 authorises the Union government to exempt persons from the operation of the Act in the public interest. Acting under this provision, the government issued Notification GSR 570(E) in 1993. The notification creates a controlled exemption from Section 6(2)(f) for persons facing criminal proceedings, provided the concerned court has applied its mind, and the applicant furnishes an undertaking to appear whenever required. The notification ties passport validity to the terms of the court’s order and provides default validity periods where no duration is specified.Story continues below this adIn 2019, the Ministry of External Affairs issued an Office Memorandum directing passport authorities that the provisions of notification GSR 570(E) “may be strictly applied in all cases.” It also specifies that if an applicant submits a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from a court, that certificate “would take precedence over any ‘Adverse’ report submitted by the police”. The SC reiterated this in its order, noting that such court permissions are to be treated as “prevailing over an adverse police report”.Also in Explained | Before top court in 2026, matters of religion, citizenship, libertyWhat did the Supreme Court rule?At the outset, the apex court proceeded on the assumption that renewal of an expired passport attracts the same statutory scrutiny as a fresh issuance. Even on that footing, it held that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act could not be treated as an “unyielding bar” once the conditions under the exemption notification were met.The court noted that both the NIA court in Ranchi and the Delhi High Court acted with “full knowledge of the pending proceedings” and “consciously allowed renewal,” while retaining control over Agarwal’s movement. That supervisory framework, the court said, addressed the core concern behind Section 6(2)(f), ensuring that an accused remains amenable to the jurisdiction of Indian courts.Story continues below this adRejecting the approach taken by the Calcutta High Court and the passport authorities, the top court held that the law does not require a criminal court to authorise a specific foreign trip as a precondition for issuing or renewing a passport. The Supreme Court observed that nothing in the Passports Act or GSR 570(E) compels courts to convert permission for renewal into “a one-time licence to undertake a particular journey”.A central plank of the court’s reasoning was the distinction between the document and the act. A passport, it held, is a civil identity document, while foreign travel is a regulated activity. So long as criminal courts retain the power to permit or prohibit travel on a case-by-case basis, denying the passport itself was found to overshoot what the statute requires.In doing so, the apex court cautioned against allowing legal procedures to become permanent obstacles to liberty. It said, “When procedural safeguards are converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden into indefinite exclusions, the balance between the power of the State and the dignity of the individual is disturbed, and the promise of the Constitution is put at risk”The court also underlined that issuing a passport does not strip the State of control. Passport authorities continue to retain statutory powers under Section 10 of the Act to impound or revoke a passport if circumstances change, conditions are breached, or fresh court orders are passed.Story continues below this adThe Supreme Court directed the Regional Passport Office to reissue Agarwal’s ordinary passport for the normal 10-year period within four weeks, subject to the continuing conditions imposed by the criminal courts.