Supreme Court Eases Passport Rules, Allows Renewal Despite Pending Trials

Image Source: Internet

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that passport authorities cannot indefinitely deny renewal of a passport merely because an individual has pending trials. The court emphasized that the right to travel abroad and hold a passport is an integral part of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and AG Masih, allowed an appeal by Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, who was facing trial in a National Investigation Agency (NIA) case. Despite having pending trials, Agarwal's passport was allowed to be renewed by the NIA court, subject to certain conditions. The court rejected the Calcutta High Court's judgments, which had upheld the refusal to renew Agarwal's passport. The Supreme Court held that the Regional Passport Office (RPO) had no right to second-guess the criminal court's assessment of risk and that the statutory bar in the Passports Act cannot be treated as an 'unyielding bar'. The court clarified that possession of a valid passport and actual travel abroad are separate issues. While an individual may have a valid passport, they may not be allowed to travel abroad without the permission of the criminal court. In this case, the Supreme Court directed the authorities to re-issue an ordinary passport to Agarwal for the normal period of ten years within four weeks. The passport would remain subject to all existing and future orders of the NIA court and the Delhi high court. The ruling is a significant victory for individuals facing trials, as it eases the restrictions on their right to travel abroad and hold a passport. However, it does not dilute the powers of criminal courts or the passport authority to impound or revoke a passport in accordance with law if circumstances so warrant.