Right To Hold Passport, Travel Abroad Integral Part Of Right To Personal Liberty Under Article 21: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the right to hold a passport and travel abroad is a fundamental facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, setting aside a central government order impounding the passport of a real estate executive.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled in favour of the petitioner, holding that any state action curtailing the right to travel must satisfy the test of reasonableness and strictly adhere to principles of natural justice.

The court quashed both the impounding order and the subsequent appellate rejection.

The case arose after Yogesh Raheja, former director of Raheja Developers, applied for renewal of his passport in October 2024.

On 17.01.2025, passport authorities impounded his passport on the ground that he had failed to disclose the pendency of a First Information Report against him.

His appeal was dismissed on 25.03.2025, following which he approached the High Court.

The central legal question before the court was whether the mere registration of an FIR amounts to “pendency of criminal proceedings” so as to justify refusal or impounding under the statutory framework governing passports.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the Ministry of External Affairs 2019 office memorandum, criminal proceedings can be said to be pending only once a competent court has taken cognisance of the offence. It was submitted that at the time of passport renewal and even at the time of impounding, no court had taken cognisance of the FIR.

The respondents maintained that non disclosure of the FIR was sufficient ground under the regulatory regime to justify impounding of the passport.

Upon examining the record, the court noted a critical factual inconsistency. While the passport was impounded in January 2025 citing pending proceedings, the competent criminal court took cognisance of the FIR only in February 2025, nearly a month later.

Highlighting the constitutional dimension of the issue, the court observed that the right to hold a passport and to travel abroad flows from Article 21 and any restriction must be backed by lawful and reasonable grounds; Administrative action cannot be sustained on assumptions that do not align with the legal status of proceedings at the relevant time.

The court found that at the time the impounding order was passed, there were no criminal proceedings pending in the eyes of law.

As such, the reasons assigned by the authorities failed to withstand judicial scrutiny.

Holding the decision legally unsustainable, the High Court set aside the orders dated 17.01.2025 and 25.03.2025, thereby restoring the petitioner’s passport and reiterating that executive action affecting personal liberty must rest on established legal facts, not anticipatory interpretations.

Case Title: Yogesh Raheja v. Union of India & Anr.

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Judgment Date: 20.02.2026