Legal Review and Analysis of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs Union of India & Anr 2025 INSC 1476
Case Synopsis
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs Union of India & Anr., 2025 INSC 1476.
Synopsis: The Supreme Court ruled that the statutory bar on passport issuance for individuals with pending criminal cases (S.6(2)(f) of the Passports Act) is not absolute. If the criminal court itself grants permission for renewal while imposing conditions (like prior approval for travel), the applicant falls under a valid exemption. The Passport Authority must then renew the passport, as the controlling court's conditions adequately serve the law's purpose of securing the accused's presence. The judgment underscores that restrictions on the right to a passport (a facet of Article 21 liberty) must be proportionate and respect the primary authority of the seized trial court.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2025 INSC 1476
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Augustine George Masih
Disposition: Appeal Allowed.
2. Related Laws and Sections
The Passports Act, 1967: Sections 5 (Application for passports), 6(2)(f) (Refusal on ground of pending criminal proceedings), 7 (Duration), 8 (Extension), 9 (Conditions and forms), 10 (Impounding/Revocation), and 22 (Power to exempt).
The Passport Rules, 1980: Rule 12 (Period of validity).
Constitution of India: Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty).
Notifications: GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 (Exemption notification under S.22) and Office Memorandum (OM) dated 10.10.2019.
Other Laws: Indian Penal Code, 1860; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Facts of the Case
The Appellant, an Indian citizen, was an accused in a serious NIA case and had a subsisting conviction (sentence suspended) in a separate CBI case.
His passport expired in August 2023. He sought renewal.
The NIA Court, Ranchi, and the Delhi High Court (where his appeal was pending) both granted "no objection" for passport renewal for ten years, subject to strict conditions: he could not travel abroad without prior court permission and had to re-deposit the passport with the NIA Court after renewal.
Despite these judicial permissions, the Passport Authority (RPO, Kolkata) refused renewal, citing the absolute bar under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act due to pending criminal proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the refusal, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the Passport Authority and the Calcutta High Court were correct in denying the renewal of the appellant's passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, despite him having obtained permission/non-objection from the concerned criminal courts, bringing him within the exemption under Notification GSR 570(E).
Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Calcutta High Court's order and directing the passport authority to renew the passport for ten years. The core reasoning was:
Statutory Scheme is Not Absolute: Section 6(2)(f) is not an unyielding bar. It operates "subject to the other provisions of this Act," which includes Section 22. The Central Government, using its power under Section 22, issued GSR 570(E) to create a controlled exemption from this bar for persons who obtain court permission.
Wide Interpretation of Exemption Notification: The Court rejected the narrow interpretation that GSR 570(E) requires a court to grant specific permission for a particular foreign journey. The notification is satisfied if the criminal court, aware of the proceedings, permits the issuance/renewal of a passport while retaining control over foreign travel (e.g., by imposing a condition of prior permission for each trip). This is what both the NIA Court and Delhi High Court had done.
Distinction Between Possession and Travel: The Court emphasized the crucial difference between holding a valid passport (a civil right) and the act of travelling abroad (regulated by the criminal court). The purpose of Section 6(2)(f) is to ensure the accused's presence before the court. This purpose is fully served when the court itself allows passport renewal but retains a veto over any actual travel through a prior permission condition.
Proportionality under Article 21: The right to a passport is a facet of the right to personal liberty under Article 21. An indefinite denial of renewal, when the supervising courts themselves see no need for it and have imposed strict controls, constitutes a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction.
Conviction Pending Appeal is Irrelevant for S.6(2)(f): The Court clarified that a subsisting conviction (where sentence is suspended and appeal is pending) does not attract Section 6(2)(f), which applies only to pending "proceedings" (i.e., pre-conviction trials). It may fall under a different clause (S.6(2)(e)), but that was not invoked here.
4. Core Principle and Judicial Analysis
Title: Passport Renewal Amidst Criminal Proceedings: Harmonizing Statutory Bars with Judicial Discretion and Constitutional Liberty
Main Issue Body
The core legal issue was the correct interpretation of the interplay between a statutory restriction on passport issuance (S.6(2)(f) of the Passports Act) and the exemption framework (S.22 and GSR 570(E)), in the context of the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Analysis and Explanation:
The Supreme Court's judgment provides an in-depth analysis of administrative law and constitutional principles, establishing a precedent that prevents the mechanical application of statutory bars.
Rejecting a Literal and Rigid Interpretation: The Calcutta High Court had adopted a literal reading, treating Section 6(2)(f) as an automatic and absolute prohibition. The Supreme Court corrected this by placing the provision within the integrated statutory scheme. The phrase "subject to the other provisions of this Act" in S.6(2) is key—it mandates that the refusal power must be read alongside the exemption power in S.22. The Court thus performed a purposive interpretation, aligning the law with its objective: to secure an accused's presence, not to indefinitely strip them of a foundational document.
Empowering the Trial Court as the Best Arbiter: The judgment reinforces the primacy of the judicial forum seized of the criminal case. The trial/appellate court is in the best position to assess risks—like flight risk or witness intimidation. If such a court, after applying its mind, grants permission for renewal while retaining travel control, the passport authority must respect that judicial determination. The authority cannot superimpose its own assessment of risk or demand more specific travel plans. This demarcates the roles: the court controls the liberty, the authority administers the document.
Constitutionalizing Passport Rights: By invoking Article 21 and the principle of proportionality, the Court elevated the discourse. It held that a blanket refusal to renew a passport, where less restrictive alternatives (like court-supervised travel conditions) are available and have been imposed, is constitutionally suspect. The restriction must be the least intrusive means to achieve the state's objective. Here, the courts' conditions were a perfectly effective, less restrictive alternative to a complete denial.
Clarifying the Legal Effect of Court Orders: The judgment provides crucial clarity on how passport authorities should read court orders. A direction that the accused "shall not leave the country without permission" is not a mere bail condition irrelevant to passport issuance; it is the very mechanism that activates the exemption under GSR 570(E). It represents the court's grant of controlled permission to "depart from India," satisfying the notification. The authority's role is then limited to issuing the passport for the period indicated by the court or the default rules.
Preventing Endless Civil Disability: The Court warned against allowing temporary judicial processes to create a "near-permanent disability." A pending case, which could last years, cannot be used to indefinitely freeze a citizen's ability to hold a valid passport, a document essential for modern life, identity, and potential future opportunities, when the concerned court does not deem it necessary.
5. Final Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the judgments of the Calcutta High Court. The respondents (Union of India & Passport Authority) were directed to re-issue an ordinary passport to the appellant for a period of ten years, subject to standard procedures, within four weeks. The passport's validity remains subject to all existing and future orders of the NIA Court, Ranchi, and the Delhi High Court, particularly the conditions against foreign travel without permission.
6. MCQ Questions Based on the Judgment
Question 1: According to the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs Union of India, the primary purpose of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act is to?
(A) Punish individuals accused of crimes by restricting their mobility.
(B) Ensure that a person facing criminal proceedings remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the court.
(C) Empower the passport authority to assess the flight risk of an accused independently.
(D) Prohibit all travel abroad for individuals involved in serious offences.
Question 2: The Supreme Court held that the exemption under Notification GSR 570(E) is satisfied when?
(A) The criminal court grants permission for a specific foreign trip with detailed itineraries.
(B) The criminal court allows passport renewal while retaining control over any future foreign travel through a condition of prior permission.
(C) The police provide a 'No Objection Certificate' for the applicant.
(D) The passport expiry date falls within the period of the trial.