APHC010004892026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 1292/2026 Between: 1. PRAKASH PIDATHALA NARASIMHA SURYA, S/O LATE P. DAKSHINA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O D.NO.27-48/32-1, SHIRIDI SAI NAGAR, COURT ROAD, PUNGANURTOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, PRESENTLY ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, RAISINA HILL, NEW DELHI, INDIA. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, C/O REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, STAIN CENTRAL, D.NO.27-37-158, GOVERNORPET, MG ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, PUNGANUR URBAN POLICE STATION, PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, PRESENTLY ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. KAMINI VENKATESWARLU (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) SRK, J WP No.1292 of 2026 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 1292/2026 ORDER: The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of 2nd respondent in issuing Letter in Ref.No.SCN/1052806220/25, dated 17.12.2025, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same and direct 2nd respondent to renew the Passport of the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner is that 2nd respondent issued a Passport bearing No.N3997694 to the petitioner on 26.10.2015 with a validity for a period of ten years. As the passport issued in favour of the petitioner was going to expire on 25.10.2025, he submitted an application dated 21.03.2025 before the Respondent Authorities seeking for renewal of the passport. Thereafter, the petitioner attended for enquiry and produced all the relevant documents for renewal of the passport. 3. While so, the petitioner received a letter dated 17.12.2025 from 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated that on police verification, it was found that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in Crime No.399 of 2024 of Punganur Police Station, SRK, J WP No.1292 of 2026 3 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 335, 336(2) and 336(4) of BNS and called upon the petitioner to submit proper explanation within 30 days. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that the offences alleged against the Writ Petitioner are under Sections 335, 336(2) and 336(4) of BNS and, if the Passport of the Writ Petitioner is renewed for five (5) years, it would hamper the investigation in Crime No.399 of 2024 of Punganur Police Station. 5. Perused the entire material available on record. 6. A perusal of entire material on record goes to show that Writ Petitioner is arrayed as accused in Crime No.399 of 2024 of Punganur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 335, 336(2) and 336(4) of BNS. 7. It is the specific contention of Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner was falsely implicated as accused in the said case and that the Writ Petitioner is always available for investigation/trial of the aforesaid case, and would not flee away from justice. It is the specific case of the Writ Petitioner that pendency of criminal case against the Writ Petitioner should not lead to denial of passport SRK, J WP No.1292 of 2026 4 facilities and further that Writ Petitioner’s passport has to be renewed for a period of five (05) years. 8. Section 5 of the Passports Act, 1967 deals with application for obtaining a passport. Section 6 thereof deals with refusal of a passport. Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 contemplates that the passport issuing authority shall be bound to reject the application for issuance of a passport, if criminal proceedings are pending in any Court in India. The Government of India issued a Notification vide GSR No.570E, dated 25.08.1993. GSR 570 (E) reads as follows: “In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 (Act 15 of 1967) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of External Affairs No.GSR 298(E) dated the 14th April 1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of India 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 (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to the following conditions, viz:- …” A plain reading of the aforesaid Notification would go to show that if any citizen of India intends to travel abroad when a SRK, J WP No.1292 of 2026 5 criminal case is pending as against him before a criminal court in India, he has to produce orders from the Court concerned permitting him to depart from India exempting from the operation of provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation1 held that refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of five (05) years immediately preceding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. 10. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India2 held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so and such law contains fair, reasonable and just procedure. The relevant portion of the paragraph No.5 is extracted as under: “Thus, no person can be deprived of his right to, go abroad unless there is a law made by the State prescribing the procedure for so depriving him and the deprivation is effected strictly in accordance with such procedure. It was 1 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572. 2 1978 (1) SCC 248. SRK, J WP No.1292 of 2026 6 for this reason, in order to comply with the requirement of Article 21, that Parliament enacted the Passports Act, 1967 for regulating the right to go abroad. It is clear from the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 that is lays down the circumstances under which a passport may be issued or refused or cancelled or impounded and also prescribes a procedure for doing so, but the question is whether that is sufficient compliance with Article 21. Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements? Obviously, procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law. Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.” 11. This Court in Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India and another3 at paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6, observed as under: “4. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2017, was dealing with a person, who was convicted by the Court and his appeal is pending for decision in the Supreme Court. The conviction I was however stayed. In those circumstances also it was held that the passport authority cannot refuse the "renewal" of the passport. 3 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP). SRK, J WP No.1292 of 2026 7 5. This Court also holds that merely because a person is an accused in a case it cannot be said that he cannot "hold" or possess a passport. As per our jurisprudence every person is presumed innocent unless he is proven guilty. Therefore, the mere fact that a criminal case is pending against the person is not a ground to conclude that he cannot possess or hold a passport. Even under Section 10 (d) of the Passports Act, the passport can be impounded only if the holder has been convicted of an offence involving "moral turpitude" to imprisonment of not less than two years. The use of the conjunction and makes it clear that both the ingredients must be present. Every conviction is not a ground to impound the passport. If this is the situation post conviction, in the opinion of this Court, the pendency of a case/cases is not a ground to refuse, renewal or to demand the surrender of a passport. 6. The second issue here in this case is about the applicability of Section 6(2)(e) of the Passport Act. In the opinion of this Court that section applies to issuance of a fresh passport and not for renewal of a passport. It is also clear from GSR 570(E) which is the Notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and is referred to in the counter-affidavit. This Notification clarifies the procedure to be followed under Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act against a person whom the criminal cases are pending. This notification permits them to approach the Court and the Court can decide the period for which the passport is to be issued. This is clear from a reading of the Notification issued. Clause (a) (i) states if no period is prescribed by the Court the passport should be issued for one year. Clause (a) (ii) states if the order of the Court gives permission to travel abroad for less than a year but has not prescribed the validity period of the passport, then SRK, J WP No.1292 of 2026 8 the passport should be for one year. Lastly, Clause (a) (iii) states if the order of the Court permits foreign travel for more than one year but does not specify the validity of the passport, the passport should be issued for the period of travel mentioned in the order. Such a passport can also be renewed on Court orders. Therefore, a reading of GSR 570(E) makes it very clear that to give exception or to exempt applicants from the rigour of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, GSR 570(E) has been brought into operation. The issuance of the passport and the period of its validity; the period of travel etc., are thus under the aegis of and control of the Court. 12. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and another4, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has significantly clarified the interpretation of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, holding that the pendency of criminal proceedings does not constitute an absolute bar to passport renewal when competent criminal courts have granted no- objection permissions. 13. A perusal of the above decision powerfully reaffirms that liberty is not a gift of the State but its first obligation, and that any restriction on Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must be proportionate, reasonable, and 4 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1238. SRK, J WP No.1292 of 2026 9 anchored in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the decisions of both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which had denied the appellant's request for passport renewal despite explicit permissions from the Delhi High Court and the NIA Court, Ranchi. By directing the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata, to issue a regular ten-year passport while maintaining judicial oversight through travel restrictions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court struck a careful balance between individual liberty and legitimate State concerns about absconding accused persons. 14. The Writ Petitioner is arrayed as accused in the aforesaid crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 335, 336(2) and 336(4) of BNS. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner would abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and present/ appear before the Court as and when required without fail. Right to travel abroad is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The said right is a Fundamental Right and a citizen of the country cannot be deprived of his personal liberty or of his right to travel abroad. As held in Ganni Bhaskara Rao Case (3 supra), mere fact that a criminal case is pending against a person, is not a SRK, J WP No.1292 of 2026 10 ground to conclude that he cannot posses or hold a passport. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and duly considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in various Judgments discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this Court exempts the petitioner from the operation of provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967 in terms of the Notification in G.S.R.No.570(E) issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, dated 25.08.1993 and directs the authority concerned to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of passport to him. The passport shall be renewed with a validity of five (05) years, under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petitioner is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date: 03.02.2026 Asr SRK, J WP No.1292 of 2026 11 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No.1292 of 2026 Date: 03.02.2026 Asr