W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 1 of 31

$~J

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment pronounced on: 02.02.2026

+ W.P.(C) 6612/2025

SH. MUKUL MITTAL .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Mr.

Bhuvnesh Satija, Mr. Udit Sharma

and Mr. Aniket Khanduri, Advocates.

versus

SR. SUPERINTENDENT POLICY REGIONAL PASSPORT

OFFICE .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC along

with Mr. Shivam Tiwari, Mr. Umar

Hashmi and Ms. Urmila Sharma,

Advocates.

Mr. Sanjay Pal, GP, UOI.

+ W.P.(C) 701/2025 and CM APPL.34616/2025

NARINDER CHUGH .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate along

with Mr. Akshay Malik, Ms. Sanskriti

Shakuntala Gupta and Mr. Shivanshu

Gusain, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, Sr. Panel

Counsel and Ms. Samiksha, Advocate

for UOI.

+ W.P.(C) 1215/2025

HARDEEP SINGH .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Prabhjyot Singh, Advocate.

versus

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 2 of 31

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Farman Ali, SPC along with

Mr. Hussain Adil Taqvi and

Mr. Prince Raushan, Advocates.

+ W.P.(C) 3597/2025

AMIT AGGARWAL .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey

(CGSC) along with Mr. Vidur

Dwivedi (GP), Ms. Gurleen Kaur

Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay and

Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

JUDGMENT

1. These petitions involve a common issue viz., issuance of passports to

persons facing ongoing criminal proceedings.

W.P.(C) 6612/2025

2. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the

respondent, whereby the petitioner’s request for renewal of his passport was

rejected. The rejection is founded on the basis that, in the absence of an

order from the competent court specifically permitting the petitioner to

‘depart from India’, his renewal application could not be considered. Order

dated 27.02.2025 is reproduced as under –

“In reference to your passport application number DLF070662575025

wherein you have submitted the orders dated 03.02.2025 passed by the

Ld. Court of Link Judicial Magistrate First Class 01, Patiala House

Courts, New Delhi in connection with File No.

574/CE/159/2019/INV/21442 and Complaint Case No. 9545/2020, this

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 3 of 31

office has perused the same and found that the Hon'ble Court has given

No Objection if passport is renewed as per rules for the full term of 10

years.

2. It is submitted that in view of Section 6(2)(1) of the Passport Act, 1967,

the Passport Authority is empowered to refuse the issuance of a passport

or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of

sub-section (2) of Section 5 on the ground that proceedings related to an

offense alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending

before a criminal court in India.

3. It is further submitted that Government of India vide gazette

notification no. GSR 570 dated 25.08.1993 have granted

relief/exemptions to the applicants against whom criminal proceedings

are pending before any court of law in India and who produces orders

from the court concerned permitting them for departing from India.

4. It is further submitted that vide OM dated 6th December, 2024 issued

by PSP Division, M/o External affairs, has clarified inter-alia that there

is no such provision for seeking permission/ NOC from the court

concerned for issuance of passport; instead it is permission to depart

from India.

5. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab &

Haryana while disposing the civil writ petition no. 1036/2025 title

"Baldev Vs UOI & Anr" has held the applicability of abovesaid GSR and

inter-alia directed the petitioner therein to approach the concerned

Court where the trial is pending in order to seek permission to depart

from India and further submit the same to the Passport Authorities.

Similarly, in CWP/915/2025 title "Rohtas Vs UOI & Anr" &

CWP/3521/2025 title "Surinder Singh Vs UOI & Anr" the Hon'ble High

Court of Punjab & Haryana directed the petitioner to approach the

concerned court for seeking permission for going abroad in terms of

notification dated 25.08.1993 issued by Ministry of External Affairs.

6. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta while

disposing WPO No. 353/2024 title "Aditya Sarda Vs RPO & Anr" has

inter-alia mentioned that "Sub-Clauses (d) and (e) of Article 19(1) are

subject to Article 19(5) which provides that nothing in the said sub-

clauses shall affect the operation of any existing law insofar as. it

imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable

restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-

clauses either in the interest of general public or for for protection of the

interest of any Scheduled Tribe. Further, the Hon 'ble Court has upheld

the applicability of the aforesaid Notification dated 25.08.1993.

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 4 of 31

7. In view of the above, you are therefore, requested to kindly furnish

order issued by the court concerned permitting you thereby for travelling

abroad, so that, further necessary action in issuing passport, shall be

taken in accordance with law.”

3. The petitioner holds a passport bearing No. Z7805746 issued on

06.06.2024. The validity of the petitioner’s passport was till 05.06.2025. The

present controversy regarding (non) renewal of the petitioner’s passport

emanates from proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST

Intelligence in 2020. On the alleged ground of non-compliance with certain

summons, a criminal complaint (CC No. 9545/2020) under Sections 172,

174, and 175 IPC was filed before the Patiala House Court, New Delhi.

Parallelly, investigation proceedings under the GST laws were also initiated

(File No. 574/CE/159/2019/INV/21442) by Directorate General of GST

Intelligence. The petitioner was arrested under Section 69 of the CGST Act

on 09.12.2020 and remanded to custody, but was granted bail by the Court

on 03.02.2021 subject to conditions, including that he would not leave the

country without prior court permission.

4. When the petitioner’s earlier passport was due to expire on

20.06.2023, he applied for renewal on 18.12.2023. During processing, the

respondent informed him that in light of the pending criminal cases, he was

required to obtain a no-objection order from the trial court in accordance

with GSR 570. Accordingly, the petitioner moved applications before the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Court, in both pending matters.

Vide orders dated 18.03.2024, the trial court permitted renewal of his

passport, in File No. 574/CE/159/2019/INV/21442 without specifying

duration, and in CC No. 9545/2020 specifically for ten years. Despite such

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 5 of 31

orders, the respondent renewed his passport only for one year, i.e., up to

05.06.2025.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner sought and obtained permission from the

trial court to travel abroad between 03.11.2024 and 05.12.2024. The said

permission was granted by the Trial Court vide order dated 29.10.2024 and

the petitioner was granted permission to travel aboard, subject to certain

conditions. It is submitted that the petitioner duly complied with the

conditions so imposed and undertook travel in terms of the permission

granted. Thereafter, anticipating expiry of his one-year passport, the

petitioner once again applied for renewal on 23.12.2024. During the

appointment on 29.01.2025, he was again directed to produce a court order.

The petitioner accordingly secured orders dated 03.02.2025 from the trial

court in both matters, expressly permitting renewal of passport for a period

of ten years. Orders dated 03.02.2025 in both pending matters are

reproduced as under –

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 6 of 31

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 7 of 31

6. It is submitted that despite such clear orders, the respondent passed

the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 rejecting the petitioner’s application

on the wholly misconceived ground that the trial court had not granted him

permission to ‘depart from India’.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed a detailed

representation dated 18.04.2025 before the respondent pointing out the

above infirmities and placing reliance on judicial precedents as well as GSR

570. It is submitted that the respondent has not acted upon it till date.

W.P.(C) 701/2025

8. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 701/2025 was convicted and sentenced by

the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad, vide order/

judgment dated 03.02.2024 under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7

and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for a period of four

years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 8 lakhs and for offence under

Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for a period of two

years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 4 lakhs.

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 8 of 31

9. The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 1773 of 2024 against the

said judgment / order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge,

Anti-Corruption, CBI, Ghaziabad.

10. The petitioner was thereafter granted bail by the Allahabad High

Court vide order dated 22.07.2024 directing as under:

“9. Let the appellant-appellant-Narinder Chugh, be released on bail in Case

Crime No. i.e. R. C. No. RC1202013A0025 of 2013, under Section 120-B IPC

and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-CBI, ACB Ghaziabad, District-

Ghaziabad on his furnishing a personal bond and two securities each in the

like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

10. It is, however, provided that the amount of fine awarded by court below

shall be deposited by applicant-appellant with the court below within a

period of 2 month from the date of his release failing which, the bail granted

to applicant-appellant shall stand canceled and he shall be taken into custody

at once to serve out the sentence awarded by Court below.”

11. It is submitted that the passport of the petitioner was last issued on

07.05.2018 and was subsequently renewed on 10.07.2019. It was valid up to

09.07.2020.

12. The petitioner approached the Regional Passport Office, Delhi in

September 2024 for issuance/renewal of his passport. However respondent

no. 2 issued a letter dated 03.09.2024, thereby informing the petitioner as

regards the objection to the renewal of the petitioner’s passport. The same is

reproduced as under –

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 9 of 31

13. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 again issued a letter dated

10.09.2024, to the petitioner thereby stating as under -

14. Subsequently the petitioner filed a representation before the

respondent no. 2 for the renewal of it passport. However, the passport was

neither issued nor has the petitioner received any communication regarding

the fate of his representation.

W.P.(C) 1215/2025

15. In W.P.(C) 1215/2025 the petitioner has submitted that he has been

falsely implicated in FIR No. 02/2012 dated 02.05.2012, registered at Police

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 10 of 31

Station Vigilance Bureau, SAS Nagar, Punjab. The petitioner was granted

bail by the Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 18.09.2012.

16. The petitioner was issued Passport No. Z2488175, which remained

valid until 20.11.2022. Upon its expiry, he applied for renewal on

11.11.2024 before the Regional Passport Office, New Delhi (respondent no.

2). It is submitted that during the processing of his application, the officers

of the said office informed him that since a criminal case was pending

against the petitioner, a court order allowing the renewal of the passport

shall be submitted before Regional Passport Office.

17. Consequently, the petitioner approached the District and Sessions

Court, SAS Nagar, Mohali, seeking permission for renewal of his passport.

The Court allowed his application and vide order dated 05.12.2024 granted

explicit permission for renewal. The relevant portion of the Order dated

05.12.2024 is reproduced as under –

“Keeping in view the fact that accused/applicant is already in

possession of the pass-port which has neither been impounded by

police and nor any such order was ever passed by the court, the

application stands allowed. Accused/applicant is at liberty to seek

renewal of pass-port from the competent authority, if the same is

permissible under the provisions of the Passport Act. It is further made

clear that present order shall not be construed as permission to the

'applicant to travel abroad. Applicant shall seek prior permission from

the court before travelling abroad. Application stands disposed of

accordingly.”

18. However, despite the said order being placed on record, it is

submitted that the respondent no. 2 rejected the petitioner’s renewal

application through its reply/letter dated 23.12.2024. The reason cited was

that the petitioner must obtain a specific order permitting him to ‘depart

from India’. Reply/letter dated 23.12.2024 is reproduced as under –

“This is in reference to your application vide file number

DL5070347905224 for issuance of passport.

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 11 of 31

2. It has been noticed that a criminal proceeding [FIR no. 02 /20 12] is

pending against you before the Hon'ble Court of ASJ/JSC/SAS Nagar.

3. It is informed that Section 6(2)(1) of the Passports Act, 1967 states

that the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel

document to an applicant on the ground that proceedings in respect of

an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are

pending before a criminal court in India. GSR S70(E) dated

25.08.1993 was introduced to give relief to such applicants against

whom criminal proceedings are pending before any court of law in

India and produces orders from the court concerned permitting them

for departing from India.

4. It is informed that vide OM dated 6

th

December, 2024 issued by PSP

division, M 10 External affairs, has further clarified in the OM dated

10'h October, 2019 and has mentioned inter-alia that there is no such

provision for seeking permission NOC from the court concerned for

issuance of passport; instead it is permission to depart from India.

5. Therefore, you are advised to submit a copy of orders from the court

concerned permitting you to depart from India, enabling us to take

further necessary action in terms of the provisions laid down under

section 5 & 6(2)(1) read with the GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 as per

law.”

W.P.(C) 3597/2025

19. The petitioner in the present petition seeks a direction that the

respondent no.2 (Regional Passport Office, New Delhi) be directed to renew

the petitioner’s passport bearing no. B7415827 for a period of ten years.

Further, the petitioner assails the order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the

JMFC/ Mahila Court 2, North West District, Rohini, Delhi in the matter

titled State v. Amit Aggarwal & Ors.(FIR No. 538 of 2020). The said order

reads as under:-

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 12 of 31

20. It is the case of the petitioner that on an earlier occasion, an order

dated 01.12.2023 was passed by the said Court recording that the Court “has

no objection if the applicant wishes to apply for renewal of his passport as

per rules”. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner’s passport was

renewed on 04.01.2024 but was made valid only up to 03.01.2025. This

impelled the petitioner to file an application dated (dated 01.12.2024) before

the concerned Court seeking that the Passport Authorities be directed to

renew the passport for a period of nine years, as per Rule 12 of the Passport

Rules, 1980. Despite the aforesaid application, the concerned Court vide

order dated 23.12.2024, omitted to clarify/ direct that the petitioner was

entitled to renewal of his passport for a longer period.

21. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that even the directions

contained in the order dated 23.12.2024 were not complied with, and a letter

dated 16.01.2025 was issued by the Regional Passport Office, Delhi,

refusing renewal of the petitioner’s passport. The said letter reads as under:-

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 13 of 31

22. Hence, it is sought that the action of the respondent no. 2 in refusing

to renew the petitioner’s passport be declared illegal. A further direction is

sought that the respondent no.2 (Regional Passport Office, New Delhi) be

directed to renew the petitioner’s passport for a period of ten years.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

23. Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 envisages refusal of a passport,

inter-alia, on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings. Section 6 of

the said Act reads as under:

“6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.—(1) Subject to the other

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 14 of 31

provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an

endorsement for visiting any foreign country under clause (b) or clause

(c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or more of the following

grounds, and on no other ground, namely:—

(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in

activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;

(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to,

be detrimental to the security of India;

(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to,

prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country;

(d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the

applicant in such country is not in the public interest.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall

refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign

country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 on any one or

more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:—

(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India;

(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in

activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;

(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be

detrimental to the security of India;

(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to,

prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;

(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years

immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a

court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in

respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;

(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been

committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;

(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the

arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the

time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India

of the applicant has been made by any such court;

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 15 of 31

(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the

expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;

(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport

or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.”

24. As can be seen, Section 6(2)(f) specifically mandates refusal to issue a

passport on the ground that “proceeding in respect of an offence alleged to

have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in

India.”

25. Under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, the legislature has

empowered the Central Government to carve out an exception to the

restrictions imposed by the aforesaid statutory provisions. The said Section

reads as under:

“22. Power to exempt.—Where the Central Government is of the opinion

that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may, by

notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions, if any,

as it may specify in the notification,—

(a) exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of all or

any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; and

(b) as often as may be, cancel any such notification and again subject, by

a like notification, the person or class of persons to the operation of such

provisions.”

26. The Central Government, being conscious of the right to travel as a

facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, exercised its powers under

Section 22 and published Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 in the

official Gazette. The same is reproduced hereunder:

“GSR 570(E)-exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Section 22 of

the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and suppression of the notification of

the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No GSR 298(E)

dated the 14 April 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it

is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 16 of 31

against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been

committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India and who

produce orders from the court concerned permitting them to depart from

India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (1) of sub-section (2) of

Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, namely

(a) The passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued:-

(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to above,

if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be

issued: or

(ii) If no period either for the issue of the passport or for the

travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be

issued for a period of one year,

(iii) if such order given permission to travel abroad for a period

less than one year but does not specify the period validly of the

passport, the passport shall be issued for one year,

(iv) such order given permission to travel abroad for a period

exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the

passport, then the passport shall be issued for a period of travel

abroad specified in the order.

(v) any passport issued in terms of (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) above can

be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant

had not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court;

and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court

is not cancelled or modified,

(vi) any passport issued in terms of (a)(i) above can be further

renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a

further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period

for travel abroad:

(vii) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the

passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court

concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in

force of the passport so issued.

[No. VI/401/37/79]

L.K. PONAPPA, Jt. Sect. (CPV)”

27. Thus, in terms of GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, any individual facing

criminal proceedings is exempted from the restriction imposed under

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 17 of 31

Section 6(2)(f), subject to the conditions enumerated therein.

28. In pursuance of the aforesaid GSR 570 (E) dated 25.08.1993,

Notification No. VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019 was issued prescribing

the procedure to be followed for applications under Section 6(2)(f). As per

the said notification, the applicant is required to submit a “No Objection

Certificate” (NOC) from the concerned Court seeking leave to depart from

India, along with an undertaking to the Passport Authorities disclosing all

pending criminal cases. Thereafter, Police Verification (PV) shall be

conducted by the police authorities and subject to the police verification

report, the passport authorities may issue or reject issuance of the passport

by recording reasons.

29. The notification further clarifies that the mere registration of FIRs or

pendency of investigation does not fall within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f).

Criminal proceedings can be said to be pending against an applicant only

where a case has been instituted before a court of law and the court has

taken cognizance thereof. The said notification dated 10.10.2019 reads as

under:-

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 18 of 31

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 19 of 31

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 20 of 31

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 21 of 31

30. Again, an Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024 was issued by the

Ministry of External Affairs, through its PSP Division, purporting to

‘clarify’ that there is no legal provision requiring an applicant to obtain

permission/ No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned Court for

the issuance/ re-issuance of a passport. Instead, the applicant is required to

obtain permission from the concerned Court specifically to depart from

India. The Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024, issued by the Ministry of

External Affairs through its PSP Division reads as under:-

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 22 of 31

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 23 of 31

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 24 of 31

31. It can be seen that there is a lack of consistency/ clarity in the

application of GSR 570(E), and this was one of the reasons which impelled

the respondent/s to issue clarificatory notifications/Office Memorandums

from time to time. Different judicial pronouncements by different High

Courts across the county have also, occasionally, taken divergent views on

the subject, as is evident from the judgments cited on behalf of the

petitioners and the respondents respectively.

32. In particular, it has been noticed that in certain cases-

(i) the passport is not issued despite court orders granting an “NOC”

for issuance / renewal of passport on the basis that GSR 570(E)

contemplates that the Court should grant “permission to depart”, and

in the absence of this phraseology, the benefit of GSR 570(E) is not

afforded to the applicant.

(ii) there is inconsistency as regards the tenure for which the passport

is renewed, even when permission is granted by the Court.

33. The controversy has now been put to rest in terms of a definitive and

authoritative judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v.

Union of India & Anr., 2025 INSC 1476,. In the said case, the following

principles have been laid down:-

i. It has been noted that GSR 570 (E) accords recognition to the fact that

persons facing criminal proceedings are not to be treated as absolutely

disentitled to a passport. Instead, it permits such persons to obtain a

passport, notwithstanding Section 6(2)(f), where the concerned

criminal court has applied its mind and passed an order in relation to

the issuance or use of the passport and where the applicant furnishes

an undertaking to appear before the Court as and when required.

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 25 of 31

ii. GSR 570(E) structures the exercise of the aforesaid exemption by

tying the validity and use of the passport to the terms of the Courts

order.

iii. Where the Court specifies the period for which the passport is to be

issued, the passport authority must honour that period.

iv. Where the Court does not stipulate any period, in terms of GSR

570(E) read with the notification dated 10.10.2019 and the Office

Memorandum dated 06.12.2024, the default position is that the

passport should ordinarily be issued for a period of one year. The

period of validity can be anchored either in the court’s order or in the

default period mentioned in the notification/s.

v. The Notification dated 10.10.2019 and the Office Memorandum dated

06.12.2024 do not create a new regime, they only explain the

procedure that is required to be adhered to when criminal cases are

pending.

vi. It is untenable for the passport authorities to insist that the Criminal

Court must grant a permission to “depart from India” for specified

dates as a jurisdictional pre-condition for the re-issuance of the

passport.

vii. In a situation where Criminal Courts, with full knowledge of the

pending proceedings, consciously allow renewal subject to the

condition that the applicant shall not travel abroad without the

permission of the Court, the underlying concern of Section 6(2)(f) is

adequately addressed under judicial supervision. To refuse renewal

on the speculative apprehension that the applicant might misuse the

passport is, in effect, to second-guess the criminal courts’ assessment

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 26 of 31

of risk and to assume for the passport authority a supervisory role

which the statute does not envisage.

viii. Where the conditions of bail already stipulate that the applicant shall

not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned

Court, and the same Court thereafter grants no objection to renew the

passport without relaxing that condition, the requirement that

departure from India shall be subject to judicial permission is built

into the very terms of the exemption. The passport authority is not

required, at the renewal stage, to demand a schedule of future

journeys or visas which may not yet exist.

ix. The Supreme Court also approved the order dated 04.09.2023 passed

by this Court in CRL.M.A. No.21988/2023 in Criminal Appeal

No.189 of 2022, whereby renewal of the passport was directed for a

period of ten years, in the backdrop of the fact that the applicant had

been convicted but the sentence was suspended, with a direction that

the applicant shall not leave the country without the permission of the

Court.

34. The relevant observations of the judgment Mahesh Kumar Agarwal

Vs. Union of India & Anr. (supra), are reproduced as under:-

“10. On a plain reading, GSR 570(E) does two things. First, it recognises

that persons facing criminal proceedings are not to be treated as absolutely

disentitled to a passport. Instead, it permits such persons to obtain a

passport, notwithstanding Section 6(2)(f), where the concerned criminal

court has applied its mind and passed an order in relation to issuance or use

of the passport and where the applicant furnishes an undertaking to appear

before the court as and when required. Secondly, it structures the exercise of

that exemption by tying the validity and use of the passport to the terms of the

court's order. Thus, where the court specifies a period for which the passport

is to be issued, the passport authority must honour that period. Where the

court does not stipulate any period, the notification provides default rules,

including issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 27 of 31

cases What the notification does not do is to create a new substantive bar

beyond Section 6(2)(f), or to insist that the criminal court must, in every case,

grant a prior blanket permission to "depart from India" for specified dates as

a jurisdictional precondition to the very issue or re-issue of a passport.

11. The OM dated 10.10.2019 does not create a new regime. It reiterates that

GSR 570(E) must be "strictly applied", explains the procedure where

criminal cases are pending and makes it clear that a "no objection

certificate" or permission from the criminal court, read with the applicant's

undertaking, may override an adverse police report with reasons recorded by

the Passport Officer. It also contemplates situations where more than one

court is dealing with the matter and indicates that the orders of all such

courts are to be read together. The OM is thus an administrative restatement

of the position under Section 6(2)(1), Section 22 and GSR 570(E), and cannot

add to or cut down the exemption which the notification itself grants.

12. Proceeding on the same assumption as the Calcutta High Court, we are

prepared to treat re-issue of an expired ordinary passport as referable to

Section 5 and subject to Section 6(2)(f). Even on that footing, the question is

whether the embargo under Section 6(2)(f) remained absolute in the

appellant's case, or stood relaxed by virtue of the orders passed by the Delhi

High Court and the NIA Court, Ranchi, which brought him within the

exempted class recognised in GSR 570(E). In our view, once the criminal

courts, with full knowledge of the pending proceedings, consciously allowed

renewal subject to the condition that the appellant shall not travel abroad

without their permission and, in the case of the NIA Court, required

redeposit of the renewed passport, the underlying concern of Section 6(2)(f)

stood adequately addressed under judicial supervision.

xxx xxx xxx

14. We are also unable to agree with the view that the appellant could not

fall within GSR 570(E) because the NIA Court did not itself mention "ten

years" in its order. The appellant's application before that court specifically

sought renewal for ten years. The NIA Court granted no objection for

renewal, released the passport for that limited purpose, directed redeposit

after renewal and prohibited the appellant from obtaining any visa or

travelling abroad without its permission. The Delhi High Court, dealing with

the conviction in the CBI case, then expressly held that there was no basis to

deny renewal "for a regular period of ten years" and granted permission

accordingly, while continuing the condition that the appellant shall not leave

the country without its permission. Read together, in the manner envisaged

by the OM dated 10.10.2019, these orders supply both the requisite judicial

permission and a clear indication of the period of validity. In such

circumstances, the Passport Authority and the Calcutta High Court were not

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 28 of 31

justified in treating Section 6(2)(f) as continuing to operate in full force so as

to deny renewal altogether.

15. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge proceeds on the basis that,

once Section 6(2)(f) is attracted, renewal of a passport is virtually ruled out

unless the criminal court, at the same time, permits a particular foreign trip

for a specified duration. With respect, this approach overlooks two features

of the statutory scheme. First, Section 6(2)(f) is a ground for refusal at the

stage of issue or re-issue, but it is expressly made subject to "the other

provisions" of the Act, which include Section 22 and the exemption carved

out through GSR 570(E). Second, GSR 570(E) does not compel the criminal

court to authorise a particular journey. It proceeds on the broader premise

that where the criminal court permits the applicant to depart from India and

the period of validity can be anchored either in the court's order or in the

default periods mentioned in the notification, the embargo in Section 6(2)(

stands lifted to that extent. In the present case, both criminal courts have r

adopted a different but equally legitimate method of control by allowing

renewal while reserving to themselves the power to regulate each instance of

foreign travel. That method satisfies the statutory concern of securing the

accused's presence as effectively as, if not more effectively than, a one-time

permission for a single trip.

16. The respondents and the Calcutta High Court have also treated the

expression "permission to depart from India" in GSR 570(E) as if it

necessarily refers only to a concrete permission for an immediately proposed

journey. We do not read the notification in so narrow a manner. Where, as

here, the conditions of bail already stipulate that the appellant shall not

leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned, and the

same court then grants no objection to renewal of the passport without

relaxing that condition, the requirement that departure from India shall be

subject to judicial permission is built into the very terms of the exemption.

The passport authority is not required, at the renewal stage, to demand a

schedule of future journeys or visas which may not yet exist. Its task is to see

whether, despite pending proceedings, the criminal courts have chosen to

keep the possibility of travel open under their supervision. Once that position

is clear, GSR 570(E) applies and the bar under Section 6(2)(f) cannot be

invoked to refuse renewal altogether.

xxx xxx xxx

19. Moreover, Section 6(2)(f) speaks of "proceedings in respect of an offence

alleged to have been committed" and is directed at the pre-conviction stage.

Once there is a conviction, the situation falls, if at all, within Section 6(2)(e),

which uses a different threshold and language. The Delhi conviction,

therefore, could not have been used to reinforce a bar under Section 6(2)(f).

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 29 of 31

In any event, the Delhi High Court, fully conscious of the conviction and

sentence, has itself granted no objection for renewal for ten years, while

retaining its control over travel.

xxx xxx xxx

21. The legitimate purpose behind Section 6(2)(f) and Section 10(3)(e) is to

ensure that a person facing criminal proceedings remains amenable to the

jurisdiction of the criminal court. That purpose is fully served in the present

case by the conditions imposed by the NIA Court, Ranchi, and the Delhi High

Court, which require the appellant to seek prior permission before any

foreign travel and, in the NIA case, to re-deposit the passport immediately

after renewal. To add to these safeguards an indefinite denial of even a

renewed passport, when both criminal courts have consciously permitted

renewal, would be a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on the

appellant's liberty.

22. It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport and the

act of travelling abroad. A passport is a civil document that enables its

holder to seek a visa and, subject to other laws and orders, to cross

international borders. Whether a person who is on bail or facing trial may

actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal court, which can grant

or withhold permission, impose conditions, insist on undertakings, or refuse

leave altogether. In the present case, both criminal courts have done exactly

that. To refuse renewal on the speculative apprehension that the appellant

might misuse the passport is, in effect, to second-guess the criminal courts'

assessment of risk and to assume for the passport authority a supervisory

role which the statute does not envisage.

xxx xxx xxx

24. Finally, even on the respondents' own reading of GSR 570(E), the

consequence of an order which does not specify a longer period of validity is

that the passport should be issued for a shorter duration, usually one year,

and not that renewal must be refused altogether. The learned Single Judge

and the Division Bench did not examine this aspect, because they proceeded

on the premise that the appellant stood outside the exemption altogether.

Once it is recognised that the appellant is within the exempted class, the

correct question for the passport authority is the appropriate period of

validity in the facts of the case, not whether any renewal is permissible at all.

In the present matter, given that the Delhi High Court has expressly

authorised renewal for ten years and the NIA Court has imposed stringent

conditions including redeposit and prior permission for travel, we see no

justification to curtail the normal period of validity.

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 30 of 31

25. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to sustain the

approach adopted by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. Both

have treated Section 6(2)(f) as an absolute bar so long as any criminal

proceeding is pending, without giving full effect to the statutory exemption

mechanism under Section 22 and GSR 570(E), and without adequately

appreciating that the criminal courts actually dealing with the appellant's

cases have consciously permitted renewal while retaining stringent control

over any foreign travel. They have, in effect, converted a qualified

restriction, designed to secure the presence of an accused, into a near-

permanent disability to hold a valid passport, even where the criminal courts

themselves do not consider such a disability necessary.”

35. Notably, the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of

India & Anr. (supra) has held that Section 6(2)(f) and GSR 570(E), read

with the (Office Memorandums/ notifications issued to clarify the said GSR)

cannot be read so as to convert a qualified restriction, designed to secure the

presence of an accused, into a near-permanent disability to hold a valid

passport, even where the criminal courts themselves do not consider such a

disability necessary. It is also evident that where permission is granted by

the court for renewal of a passport, even if the same is expressed in generic

terms and not in the exact phraseology used in GSR 570 (E), the same shall

be construed as satisfying requirements of GSR 570 (E). In such a situation,

the passport shall be renewed for the period directed by the Court where the

period is not specified by the Court, the passport would be renewed for a

period of one year in terms of GSR 570 (E) read with the above mentioned

notifications and the office memorandum.

36. Applying the aforesaid legal position, as enunciated in Mahesh

Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Anr. (supra), to the facts of the

present cases, it is evident that in W.P.(C) 701/2025, although bail has been

granted to the petitioner in the appellate proceedings arising from his

conviction, the Court has not issued any specific directions with respect to

W.P.(C) 6612/2025 and Connected Matters Page 31 of 31

the issuance or renewal of a passport, nor granted a “No Objection

Certificate” / permission to depart for that purpose. Accordingly, it would be

incumbent upon the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the

concerned Court seeking such permission.

37. In contrast, so far as the petitioners in W.P.(C) 6612/2025, W.P.(C)

1215/2025 and W.P (C) 3597/2025 are concerned, it is noted that in these

cases, specific orders have been passed by the respective trial courts,

expressly permitting the renewal of their passports during the pending

proceedings. In view thereof, the concerned passport authorities are directed

to renew their passports in accordance with law, duly taking into

consideration the trial courts’ orders expressly granting such permission.

38. The passport shall be renewed for the period specified in the Orders

dated 03.02.2025 in W.P.(C) 6612/2025. Since no specific period / terms of

renewal have been mentioned in the order dated 05.12.2024 in W.P.(C)

1215/2025 and order dated 23.12.2024 in W.P (C) 3597/2025, the passport

shall be renewed only for a period of one year, as contemplated in GSR 570

(E) read with notification dated 10.10.2019 and Office Memorandum dated

06.12.2024. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to move an

application before the Trial Court seeking that the passport be renewed for a

longer period. Any order that may be passed by the said Trial Court on such

an application shall necessarily be binding on the passport authorities.

39. These petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

SACHIN DATTA, J

FEBRUARY 2, 2026/cl, sv, uk