APHC010071742026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 4244/2026 Between: 1. MAREDDY RAVINDRANATH REDDY @ B TECH RAVI, EX. M.L.C S/O. KRISHNA REDDY, R/O. CHOWDAMMA TEMPLE STREET SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER A N D 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SOUTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, RAISINA HILL, NEW DELHI, INDIA. 110004 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, GJ3M PLUS X9M, VENKATESWARA THEATRE COMPLEX MG RD, OPP. RADIO STATION, VIJAYAWADA ANDHRA PRADESH 520610 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in renewing the petitioner's passport bearing No. AH999657 for a period of one year instead of ten years, pursuant to the order dated 08-01-2026 in Crl.M.p.No.3 of 2026 in Crime no. 21 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa, and orders dated. 04-08-2025 passed in CrI.M.P.No 1321 of 2025, in Spl.SC.No.26 of 2022 on the file of Special sessions judge for the trial of offences under SC/ST(POA) Act cases-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Section 7 of the SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 2 Passports Act, 1967, Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to renew the petitioner's passport no. AH999657 a period of ten (10) years, in accordance with law and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 3 O R D E R This Writ Petition was filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents particularly, 2nd respondent in renewing the petitioner’s Passport vide Passport No:AH99657 for a period of One year instead of Ten years, pursuant to the Order dated 08.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2026 in Crime No.21 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa and Order dated 04.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1321 of 2025 in Special S.C.No.26 of 2022 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs (PoA) Act Cases-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 7 of the Passports Act, 1967, Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct 2nd respondent to renew the petitioner’s Passport No.AH999657 a period of Ten (10) years in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders …” 2. Contents of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner, in brief, are that the Writ Petitioner is a former Member of Legislative Council. The Writ Petitioner was issued Passport bearing No.X3840053 on 29.02.2024 and it expired on 28.02.2025. The Writ Petitioner approached respondent No.2 and made an application vide File No.VJ2077334682525 for renewal; that pursuant to the renewal application, respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice dated 24.12.2025 calling upon explanation from the Writ Petitioner stating that an adverse report was SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 4 received against the Writ Petitioner that Spl. Sessions Case No.26 of 2022 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under the SCs & STs (PoA) Act Cases, 1989-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, arising out of a case in Crime No.494 of 2020 of Pulivendula U/G Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity „the Act, 1989‟) and a case in Crime No.21 of 2023 of Valluru Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 352, 353 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „IPC‟), are pending against the Writ Petitioner, in which, he was arrayed as accused No.4 and accused No.1, respectively. (b) The Writ Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2026 in Crime No.21 of 2023 of Valluru Police Station, on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, and Crl.M.P.No.1321 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2022 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under the SCs & the STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, under Sections 6 and 8 of the Passports Act, 1967 (for brevity „the Act, 1967‟) praying the Courts to direct the SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 5 Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada to renew his passport. Upon hearing, both the trial Courts directed the Passport Authority to renew the Passport. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa directed the respondent No.2 herein, to renew the passport for a period of Three (03) years. (c) In regard to case in Crime No.21 of 2023 of Vallur Police Station, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kadapa issued proceedings vide Rc.No.142/SDPO-KDP/2025, dated 26.04.2025 permitting the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vallur Police Station to refer the aforesaid crime as „no sufficient evidence to charge the case against the accused‟ and file final report before the Jurisdictional Court. In respect of case in Spl. Sessions Case No.26 of 2022, though there is no specific direction by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa to renew the passport for certain period, the respondent No.2 instead of renewing the passport for Ten (10) years as mandated under law, renewed the same only for One (01) year; that to make an application for VISA to any Country, there are certain restrictions, where minimum 6 months to 1 year passport validity is required and due to the action of respondent No.2, the SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 6 right of Writ Petitioner to apply for VISA has been curtailed and it caused mental agony. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. During arguments, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the Writ Petition affidavit. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that two criminal cases are pending against the Writ Petitioner, in which, one case is pertaining to the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 120B and 228A read with 149 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Act, 1989 and the other case is pertaining to the offences punishable under Sections 341, 352, 353 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. It is further contended that the Writ Petitioner is highly influenced political person and if the Passport of the Writ Petitioner is renewed for Ten (10) years, it would hamper the trial proceedings. 5. Perused the entire material available on record. 6. A perusal of entire material on record goes to show that Writ Petitioner is former Member of Legislative Council and he was arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.21 of 2023 of Vallur SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 7 Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 352, 353 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and accused No.4 in Spl.Sessions Case No.26 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 120B and 228A read with 149 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Act, 1989. 7. It is the contention of learned counsel for Writ Petitioner that the younger brother of Writ Petitioner is residing in America and as such, he obtained the passport and he intends to travel abroad to meet his younger brother. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner that Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2022 has been pending on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge, Kadapa and the Writ Petitioner filed application seeking for renewal of passport and though there is no specific direction, in regard to certain period to renew the passport, by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa vide Order, dated 04.08.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.1321 of 2025 in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2022, the Passport authority instead of renewing the Passport of Writ Petitioner for Ten (10) years as per the Notification vide GSR SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 8 No.570E, dated 25.08.1993, renewed the same only for a period of One (01) year. 8. It is the specific contention of Writ Petitioner that though the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa vide Order dated 08.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2026 in Crime No.21 of 2023 of Vallur Police Station directed the Passport Authority to renew the Writ Petitioner‟s passport for a period of Three (03) years, vide Proceedings in Rc.No.142/SDPO-KDP/ 2025, dated 26.04.2025, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kadapa permitted the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vallur Police Station to refer the aforesaid crime as „no sufficient evidence to charge the case against the accused‟ and it is pending to file final report before the Jurisdictional Court. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner was falsely implicated as accused No.4 in Spl. Sessions Case No.26 of 2022 pending on the file of the Special Sessions Judge, Kadapa and that the Writ Petitioner is always available 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 facilities and further that Writ Petitioner‟s passport has to be renewed for a period of ten years. SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 9 9. 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 criminal case is pending as against him before a criminal court in India, he has to produce orders from the Court concerned SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 10 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 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 1 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572. 2 1978 (1) SCC 248. SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 11 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.” 12. 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. 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 3 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP). SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 12 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 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 SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 13 570(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. 13. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and another4, has 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. The said 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 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 Officer, Kolkata, to issue a regular ten-year passport while maintaining judicial oversight through travel restrictions. The 4 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1238. SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 14 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 No.4 in the aforesaid Spl. Sessions Case No.26 of 2022 trying for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 120B and 228A read with 149 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Act, 1989. 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. 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 SRK, J W.P.No.4244 of 2026 15 25.08.1993 and directs the authority concerned to consider the request of the Writ Petitioner for renewal of passport to him. The passport shall be renewed with a validity of ten (10) years, under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 23rd February, 2026. MKK/DNB