Court asks Centre to rethink short-validity passports for citizens facing criminal charges

It, thereafter, observed, “It would be for concerned authorities to consider these ground realities and formulate a necessary policy in regard to issuance or reissuance of a passport when criminal proceedings are pending against a citizen of the country.”

Case before the court

The court made the remarks while hearing the petition of one Ajith Ranka, 53, a Bengaluru resident accused by his wife of violating Sections 498A (Dowry harassment), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 354(B) (assault or criminal force to a woman) of the Indian Penal Code.

In 2023, Ranka’s passport expired, and he moved an application for renewal before the authorities. His application was rejected on December 3, 2025, following which he moved the high court seeking a direction to the passport authorities to issue a short-validity passport.

Appearing for Ranka, Advocate Dhiraj A K said, “Based on the high court order dated December 16, 2025, directing the authorities to consider my application for re-issuance of SVP, the passport office had on 02.02.2026 renewed the petitioner’s passport for a period of one year, and now it is due for second renewal.”

After Ranka sought to renew the passport, the authorities issued him a notice on July 27, directing him to furnish details of the court order if the case is cleared, or else furnish travel permission from the court concerned. Following this, Ranka moved the high court seeking to cancel the notice and direct the authorities to renew/reissue him the passport.

The bench partly allowed his plea on Thursday, directing Ranka to reply to the notice issued to him by furnishing an undertaking that he would travel only upon receipt of an order from the court concerned seized of the criminal proceedings.

In his arguments, Advocate Dhiraj highlighted the Supreme Court judgment in the case of ‘Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Union of India (2025)’, wherein it has been said that freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Reliance was also placed on the judgment in the case of ‘Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (1978)’, wherein the top court held 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.

Accepting the submissions, Justice Govindaraj observed, “Right to travel is a fundamental right and it cannot be infringed merely on non-issuance of passport.”