Liberty under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has reminded, does not flow from the generosity of the State. It is the State’s first duty. Reiterating this principle, the Court has held that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot, by itself, be used to deny or renew a passport.
The ruling came in a case involving Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, whose passport had expired while he remained entangled in multiple criminal matters. One conviction related to a coal block case had its sentence suspended, while another prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act continued before a special court in Ranchi. In both matters, courts had permitted renewal of his passport, subject to strict conditions: the document was to be deposited with the court, and foreign travel could take place only with prior permission.
Despite these clear directions, the passport authorities declined renewal, citing pending criminal proceedings under the Passports Act. That refusal was later upheld by the Calcutta High Court, setting the stage for the appeal before the Supreme Court.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and A.G. Masih disagreed with this approach. The judges underlined that freedom of movement — including the ability to travel abroad — is a core element of personal liberty protected by Article 21. While the State may regulate this freedom in the interests of justice or security, any restraint must be lawful, proportionate and narrowly tailored.
The Court cautioned against allowing procedural safeguards to harden into permanent obstacles. When temporary restrictions turn into indefinite exclusions, the judges said, the constitutional promise itself begins to fray.
Reading the Passports Act alongside government guidelines, the Bench clarified that the provision barring issuance of passports to persons facing criminal proceedings is not absolute. Where a criminal court has applied its mind and permitted issuance or renewal — even while retaining full control over foreign travel — the passport authority cannot shut the door altogether.
The judges also rejected the idea that courts must approve a specific overseas journey at the time of renewal. A passport, they explained, is only a civil document enabling a person to seek visas and cross borders subject to law. Whether the holder may actually leave the country is a separate question, squarely within the control of the trial court.
Demanding details of future travel plans or visas at the renewal stage, the Court noted, makes little sense. More importantly, refusing renewal on speculative fears amounts to second-guessing judicial assessments and elevating the passport office into a supervisory role it does not possess.
Drawing a clear line between possession of a passport and permission to travel, the Bench held that denying renewal on apprehension alone undermines individual dignity and disturbs the balance between State power and personal freedom.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court directed the authorities to issue Agarwal an ordinary passport valid for ten years. The document, however, will remain firmly subject to all existing and future court orders, including the condition that he cannot leave India without prior approval and must deposit the passport whenever directed.
Liberty, the judgment signals, cannot be reduced to a privilege withheld at convenience. It remains a constitutional obligation — even, and especially, when the State exercises its power to prosecute.
