While hearing an appeal by one Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, who is an accused in an NIA investigation and also a convict in a CBI case (though his sentence is suspended), the Supreme Court examined the question Can the mere pendency of a criminal case become an absolute bar to renewing a passport?

The appellant was appearing before the Apex Court, challenging this rigid interpretation as a violation of his fundamental right to travel.

*Supreme Court observed that where a trial court grants permission or a “no objection,” then the requirement for exemption under Notification GSR 570(E) stands satisfied.

Despite the appellant was successful in getting the 'No Objection' from the NIA Court in Ranchi and the Delhi High Court on a condition that he would not leave the country without prior permission and must re-deposit the passport, the Regional Passport Office (RPO) Kolkata refused a regular 10-year renewal.

However, Calcutta High Court upheld the actions of the Regional Passport Office (RPO) Kolkata in refusing to renew the ordinary passport of the appellant which expired in August 2023, reasoning that under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and notification GSR 570(E), a passport could only be issued or renewed if the criminal court specifically permitted the applicant to** **"depart from India" for a defined period.

Interestingly, by providing the distinction between the possession of a valid passport and the act of traveling abroad; the Supreme Court held that a passport is a civil identity document that merely enables its holder to apply for a visa; whether a person on bail actually leaves the country remains strictly under the supervision of the criminal court.

It further held that refusing renewal on the "speculative apprehension" of misuse, the passport authority was found to be second-guessing judicial assessments.

Supreme Court analyzed the interplay between Section 6(2)(f) and Section 22 of the Passports Act, noting that notification GSR 570(E) was specifically designed to relax the statutory bar for those facing criminal proceedings.

The Apex Court, thus, rejected the narrow reading that 'permission to depart' requires a specific, immediate travel schedule.

The Apex court, on the contraray, held that if a criminal court grants a "no objection" for renewal while retaining control over travel via bail conditions, the statutory concerns of Section 6(2)(f) are adequately addressed.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out a procedural error in the lower courts' logic regarding the appellant's conviction. Relying on the precedent in case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIO, 2021 (Click to Download), the Court noted that Section 6(2)(f) applies to the pre-conviction stage (pending trial), whereas post-conviction scenarios are governed by Section 6(2)(e).

**The Apex Court doesnot appear to appreciate the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench and held that converting a temporary disability into an indefinite exclusion from holding a passport is a disproportionate restriction on personal liberty.

**The Apex Court held "This Court has repeatedly held in a catena of judgements that the right to travel abroad and the right to hold a passport are facets of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any restriction on that right must be fair, just and reasonable, and must bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose.

In Conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Calcutta High Court and directing the RPO to re-issue the passport for a standard ten-year term. The Bench emphasized that liberty is the State's first obligation, and any restraint on a citizen’s freedom to move must be narrowly confined and proportionate.

CORAM: JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH AND JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.