Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 has opposed the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 (in short '1967 Act), empowers the passport authorities to refuse issuance of passport or travel documents to a person against whom criminal proceedings are pending before a Court in India. A reference is made to Government Instructions/Notification G.S.R. 570(E), which provides an exemption from the operation of Section 6(2)(f) in cases where the individual obtains a Court order permitting departure from India. It is further submitted that in terms of the aforesaid Government notification, the petitioner must firstly obtain explicit permission from the competent Court to travel abroad or depart from India, failing which no passport can be issued. Accordingly, it is asserted that, since the learned trial Court has not granted permission to the petitioner to travel abroad, therefore, the passport to the petitioner has been rightly declined.

(f) of 1967 Act relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal Court. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -7- of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to issue the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in Supreme Court.

12.4 In "Wassan Singh Versus Union of India", 2023 (3) RCR (C) 786, a coordinate bench of this Court has also held that mere pendency of FIR itself is no ground for refusal or non issuance of passport to the applicant. The relevant extracts thereof reads as under :-

"A perusal of section 6 of the Passports Act would show that mere pendency of an FIR itself is no ground for refusal or non- issuance of passport to the applicant. This Court had also occasioned to deal with an identical issue in the case of Daler Singh v. Union of India and others(Supra) and Sahib Jaskaran Singh v. Union of India and others(Supra). So far as allegation of suppression of facts pertaining to FIRs at the time of application filed by the petitioner is concerned, Section 6 does not lay down any ground that on the basis of suppression of pendency of an FIR, a passport can be refused. So far as suppression in case of impounding is concerned, Section 10 deals with the same but a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sukhdeep Singh v. Union of India and another(Supra) also dealt with this issue that even in that case as well, the suppression of FIR itself cannot become a ground for impounding of the passport. However, the present case does not pertain to impounding of the passport but it pertains to grant/issue of passport and therefore, the case of the petitioner is governed by section 6 of the Passports Act."

13. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal versus Union of India & Another, SLP(C) No. 17769 of 2025 (Decided on 19.12.2025); while dealing with a matter concerning issuance / renewal of passport to a person involved in various criminal matters (wherein he was also convicted in one matter); observed as under:-

"8. From a conjoint reading of Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Passports Act, a structured scheme emerges. Section 5 is the starting point. It prescribes the manner in which an application for a passport is to be made and requires the passport authority, subject to the other provisions of the Act, to decide the application by issuing or refusing the passport through a written order. Section 6 qualifies that power and sets out, in an CWP-17945-2025 (O&M) -9- exhaustive manner, the grounds on which the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document. Sub-section (1) deals with refusal of endorsements for particular countries. Sub-section (2) governs refusal of issue itself and again begins with the words "subject to the other provisions of this Act". It obliges the authority to refuse issue where any of the situations in clauses (a) to (i) are present, including the pendency of criminal proceedings before a court in India under clause (f). Section 7 then addresses the duration of a passport. It provides that a passport shall continue in force for such period as may be prescribed, but also permits the authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing to the applicant, to issue a passport for a shorter period in an appropriate case. Section 8 deals with the converse situation where a passport has already been issued for a shorter period. It permits extension of such a passport, but expressly states that the provisions of the Act shall apply to such extension as they apply to the issue of the passport, thereby linking an extension back to the same statutory conditions and limitations that govern original issue under Sections 5 and 6.