Passport Cannot Be Withheld Solely Due to Criminal Case: Telangana HC

A pending criminal case cannot by itself justify denial of passport services, particularly where no restraint has been imposed by a competent court, the Telangana High Court has held, observing that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty and cannot be curtailed mechanically by administrative authorities.

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, while dealing with a writ petition challenging refusal of passport reissuance, set aside the objection raised by the passport authorities and directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s application, holding that mere pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically attract refusal under the Passports Act.

The Court emphasized that the statutory framework requires a nuanced application and cannot be invoked to deny fundamental rights in a routine manner.

The petitioner, a research scientist employed in the United States, had approached the High Court after the Regional Passport Office refused to process his application for reissuance of passport on the ground that an FIR had been registered against him under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The refusal was communicated through an objection letter issued following police verification.

According to the petitioner, he had travelled to India in June, 2025 along with his wife and subsequently lost his passport in Hyderabad, following which he lodged a police complaint and applied for reissuance.

During verification, he was informed of the criminal case registered by his wife.

He contended that he had cooperated with the investigation and that mere pendency of proceedings could not be a valid ground to deny passport services under the Passports Act, 1967.

The petitioner further submitted that he was required to return to the United States to resume his employment as a research scientist and failure to do so would result in loss of employment and serious professional consequences.

He also denied allegations of suppression of material facts, asserting that he was unaware of the FIR at the time of applying for reissuance.

Opposing the petition, the Union of India and passport authorities relied on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, contending that where criminal proceedings are pending before a competent court, issuance or reissuance of passport can be refused.

It was argued that the petitioner had failed to disclose the pending criminal case and that, in terms of the applicable office memorandum, he ought to have obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the trial court.

The petitioner’s wife, who was impleaded as a party, opposed the grant of relief, alleging that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed material facts and that the loss of passport was a fabricated story intended to facilitate his departure from India.

She contended that permitting him to obtain a passport would enable him to evade the criminal process and cause irreparable prejudice.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court examined the scope of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and the applicable executive instructions.

It noted that while the provision empowers refusal where criminal proceedings are pending, such power must be exercised in accordance with law and cannot be applied mechanically in every case.

The Court took note of judicial precedents recognizing the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21.

The Court observed that the petitioner had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and trial, and had even furnished an undertaking to appear before the criminal court as required. It also noted that no specific order had been passed by the trial court restraining the petitioner from leaving the country.

It was found that the passport authority’s refusal, based solely on pendency of criminal proceedings and without examining the surrounding circumstances, was unsustainable.

The bench held that the authority was required to consider whether any restraint existed from the competent court and whether conditions could be imposed to balance the interests of justice.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned objection and directed the passport authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application in accordance with law, keeping in view the principles governing issuance of passports in cases involving pending criminal proceedings.

The Court clarified that the petitioner would remain bound to comply with any conditions imposed by the competent court and to cooperate with the criminal process.

Case Title: Dr. Raghavender Siva Vijaya Chivukula v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka

Date of Judgment: 18.03.2026