APHC010160072026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION NO: 8185/2026 Between: 1. ADDANKI VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O ADDANKI JACOB, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O 13-11-22/2, ST. ANNS SCHOOL, KOBBARITHOTA, WARD NO.29, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. ADDANKI LEELA PARAMJYOTHI, W/O ADDANKI VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O 13-11-22/2, ST. ANNS SCHOOL, KOBBARITHOTA, WARD NO.29, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001. 2. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530009. 3. THE ARUNDALPET P S, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER - 522002. ...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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not renewing the passports of the Petitioners citing pendency of Crime.No.504 of 2025 dated 15.08.2025 on the file of Arundalpet P.S, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 and the Passport Rules, 1980 and also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the 2 Respondent to renew the passports of the Petitioners and further direct the Respondent No.2 herein to permit the petitioners to travel abroad and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to permit the 2nd Petitioner to travel abroad on 09.04.2026, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. AJAY KUMAR KANAPARTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THENEPALLI NIRANJAN SC FOR CENTRAL. GOVT 2. GP FOR HOME 3. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION No.8185 of 2026 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners declaring the action of 2nd respondent in not renewing the Passports of the petitioners citing pendency of Crime No.504 of 2025, dated 15.08.2025 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur District, as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and the Passports Rules, 1980 and also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to renew the passports of the petitioners and further direct 2nd respondent to permit the petitioners to travel aboard. 2. The brief facts leading to file this writ petition is as follows: (i) The 1st petitioner was issued a passport bearing No.P0639857 by 2nd respondent on 23.09.2016 for a period of 10 years. The said passport will expire on 22.09.2026. Similarly, 2nd petitioner was issued a passport bearing No.P1714156 by 2nd respondent on 23.09.2016 for a period of 10 years. The said passport will also expire on 22.09.2026. Therefore, the petitioners have made separate applications to 2nd respondent for renewal of passports vide File Nos.VS2079655076116 and No.VS2079655028916 on 06.03.2026. (ii) During the course of police verification, the registration of the crime bearing No.504 of 2025 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur District for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 79 r/w 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, was brought to the notice of the petitioners. The 2nd 4 respondent pursuant to the above applications has not renewed the passports in view of the pendency of the above crime. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government and learned Government Pleader for Department of Home, and perused the material available on record. 4. The point for consideration is whether the passport authorities are justified in rejecting for renewal of passports of the petitioners on the ground of pendency of criminal case/criminal proceedings against them or not? 5. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that in the course of police enquiry, it has come out that criminal complaint is registered against the petitioners and the said crime is presently under investigation. He further submits that in view of the said pendency, the passport of the petitioners could not be issued and relies upon Section 6(2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 which stipulates that the passport authority can refuse to issue a passport on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicants are pending before a criminal Court in India. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the criminal case is false and baseless and the same is only at the investigation stage and no charge sheet has been filed till date and no court has taken cognizance of the alleged offence. 5 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Judgment of High Court of Karnataka and Bangalore, dated 01.10.2020 in W.P.No.9141 of 2020. They also relied upon a Judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi equivalent to Ashok Kanna vs. Central Bureau of Investigation1 and the Judgment of the High Court of Madras, dated 27.06.2014 in the case of W.Jaihar William vs. State of Tamil Nadu2. 8. A perusal of Section 6(2)(f) would go to show that the said condition would operate only when a Court of appropriate criminal jurisdiction takes cognizance of the case and the said case is pending before the criminal Court. In the present case, the matter is still pending investigation and no charge sheet has been filed. In the said circumstances, the provisions of Section 6(2)(f) would not be applicable. 9. As far as Section 6(2)(f) is concerned, the Central Government has also issued G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that issue of passport to a person falling within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f) need not be stalled, provided the said person obtains Court orders specifying the further period of valid passport or specifying a period of travel abroad. 10. It is very pertinent to refer the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the various High Courts as extracted herein under: 1 2019 (265) DLT 614 2 (2014) 8 MLJ 61 6 (1) In Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. Central Bureau of Investigation3, the Apex Court had an occasion to examine the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967, pendency of criminal cases and 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. Section 6.2(f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal court. The petitioner therein was convicted in a case for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and also Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against which, an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed. The sentence was reduced to a period of one (01) year. The petitioner therein had approached the Apex Court by way of filing an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, considering the said facts, the Apex Court held that Passport Authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal. Thus, the Apex Court directed the Passport Authority to issue the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal appeal in S.C. (2) In Sumit Mehta v. State of NCT of Delhi4, the Apex Court at para No.13 observed as herein under: 3 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572 42013 (15) SCC 570 : MANU/SC/0935/2013 7 “The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumable innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” (3) In Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India5, the Apex Court 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 Para No.5 is extracted herein under: “5. 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 Passport may be issued or refused or canceled 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.” (4) In Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India (UOI) and Others6, the Apex Court observed at para No.5 as extracted herein under: “5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship which are the basic humanities which 5 1978 (1) SCC 248 : MANU/SC/0133/1978 6 MANU/SC/0826/2019 8 can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right.” (5) In a recent judgment of the Apex Court in case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India & Anr.,7 while dealing with the aspect of freedom of a citizen and rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, observed as herein under:- “Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State may, where statute so provides, regulate or restrain that freedom in the interests of justice, security or public order but such restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law. When procedural safeguards are converted into rigid barriers, or temporary disabilities are allowed to harden into indefinite exclusions, the balance between the power of the State and the dignity of the individual is disturbed, and the promise of the Constitution is put at risk.” It is also held at paragraph No.25 of the aforesaid judgment as under: “Para 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.” 7 2025 INSC 1476 9 11. For the aforesaid reasons and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and High Courts as referred above, this writ petition is allowed directing the Passport Authorities to renew of the passports of the petitioners. 12. However, in the event of charge sheet being filed after investigation in criminal cases, the petitioners would be required to obtain necessary orders from the concerned Courts where the charge sheet is filed. These orders shall be in relation to the further period of validity of the said passports and conditions, if any that may be imposed by the concerned Court in relation to their travel abroad. 13. In the event, the petitioners do not take steps for obtaining such orders, it would be open to the Passport Authorities to revoke the passports of the petitioners after due notice to the petitioners. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date: 30.03.2026 PGR 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND W.P.No.8185 of 2026 Date:30.03.2026 PGR