Can pending case prevent foreign trip? Court defends doctor’s right to travel

Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela said courts have emphasised that the objective of ensuring the presence of an accused in criminal proceedings must be balanced against their basic rights.

“As per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant in India. A bare reading of the Passport Act, 1967 reveals that there is no absolute bar for Renewal of passport,” the court said on May 28.

“As per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act, 1967 when the passport authority refuses to grant passport, the Court while exercising its discretion has to look at the facts and circumstances of each case. Mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a reason to refuse to grant passport,” it added, reiterating that authorities must balance statutory provisions with the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the right to travel abroad.

Travel a fundamental right

• The right to travel is indeed a fundamental right, and the same cannot be arbitrarily and illegally denied by the state, and no person can be deprived of this right, except according to a procedure established by law.
• The high court relied on previous decisions, which held that criminal proceedings alone cannot justify the rejection of passport applications.
• Citing earlier rulings, the court observed that there is “no absolute bar” on renewal of a passport merely because criminal proceedings are pending and that authorities must consider the facts and circumstances of each case before taking a decision.
• Justice Gedela noted that constitutional courts have repeatedly emphasised that the objective of ensuring the presence of an accused person in criminal proceedings must be balanced against the individual’s fundamental rights.

Passport renewal stalled over pending cases

The cardiologist had approached the high court after the Regional Passport Office in Vijayawada declined to process his passport renewal application without court permission.

His existing passport, issued on June 22, 2016, is due to expire on June 21. He applied for renewal on April 21 this year.

According to court records, passport authorities flagged pending criminal proceedings against the doctor during police verification and alleged that he had failed to disclose them in his online application.

In response, the doctor submitted an explanation stating that the omission was inadvertent and provided details of the pending cases along with supporting court orders.

However, on May 14, the regional passport officer informed him that he would have to obtain permission to travel abroad from the concerned criminal court in view of a 1993 Central government notification before his passport could be renewed.

Doctor cites international medical commitments

Before the high court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the passport refusal was unjustified, particularly because courts had already granted protection in the pending criminal matters.

The petition stated that one case arose out of a 2020 registration at Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada, in which the court had granted interim protection and the Supreme Court had also protected his liberty.

Another related matter of 2024 pending before the I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, had been stayed by the high court in November 2024.

The doctor also highlighted the professional consequences of the passport dispute. The court was informed that he had received an invitation to attend an annual scientific meeting scheduled to be held in the United States in July 2026.

Failure to renew the passport, the petition said, would adversely affect his professional obligations, international academic participation and medical engagements.

Court reviews passport law and constitutional rights

• While examining the dispute, Justice Gedela analysed Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which empowers passport authorities to refuse issuance of a passport when criminal proceedings are pending before a court in India.
• The court, however, noted that several Supreme Court and high court judgments have clarified that the provision cannot be interpreted as creating an absolute bar against issuance or renewal of passports.
• Referring to decisions including Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v CBI, Satwant Singh Sawhney v D Ramarathnam, Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi and Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India, the court observed that the right to travel abroad forms an integral part of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The judgment quoted earlier precedents holding that an accused person continues to enjoy fundamental rights and that restrictions on travel must satisfy the test of fairness, reasonableness, and legality.

Direction to passport authorities

• Disposing of the writ petition, the high court directed the Regional Passport Officer and other concerned authorities to renew the doctor’s passport in accordance with Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and the legal principles laid down by the constitutional courts.
• The authorities have been asked to pass appropriate orders within two weeks of the date of receipt of the court’s order.
• No order was passed as to costs.

Why judgment matters

The ruling is expected to have implications beyond this case. It reinforces a growing body of judicial decisions holding that pending criminal proceedings do not automatically strip citizens of their right to obtain or renew passports.

By reiterating that passport authorities cannot mechanically deny renewal solely because a criminal case is pending, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has underlined the principle that fundamental rights must be protected unless restricted through a fair, reasonable, and legally sustainable process.