Katta Rama Devi, Vs The Union of India

THE PASSPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP BY ITS CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, PSP DIVISION, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.8, PATIALA HOUSE, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶14

THE PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, 4TH FLOOR,STALIN CENTRAL, D.NO.27-37-158, GOVEMORPET, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. NTR DISTRICT.-520002

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NADENDLA POLICE STATION, NADENDLA, NADENDLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522234

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 3rd respondent in not considering the petitioners

¶18

SRK, J W.P.No.3657 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

application made for the renewal of passport or five years . Application No 25-10668262613 on 15.12.2025. as being illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the petitioners rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and Passport Rules 1980 and consequently direct the respondents to issue the passport to the petitioner forthwith and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 3rd respondent to consider the renewal of passport Application No 25- 10668262613 on 15.12.2025 of the petitioner for renewal of the passport pending disposal of Writ Petition, and to pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.K.S.G. PADMAVATHI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.MALLAMPALLI SRINIVAS(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

¶27

2.GP FOR HOME

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

SRK, J W.P.No.3657 of 2026

¶30

3

¶31

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.3657 of 2026

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents.

¶35

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶36

To declare the action of the respondent No.3 in not considering the petitioner’s application No.2510668262613, dated 15.12.2025 made for renewal of passport for five years as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to issue the renewal passport to the petitioner forthwith.

¶37

Case of the petitioner is that on earlier occasion, she made an application for issuance of passport on 22.07.2024. Pursuant to the same, on the ground that a case is pending against the petitioner herein, she approached the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet by filing Crl.M.P.No.9 of 2025 in C.C.No.452 of 2022 for issuance of No Objection Certificate for issuing passport and the same was allowed. Basing on the said orders, the passport authorities issued passport on 25.02.2025 valid till 24.02.2026. Again, the petitioner applied for renewal of her passport for five years on 15.12.2025, but the respondent authorities are not issuing renewal passport since a criminal case is pending against her.

¶38

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that a Criminal Case is pending against the petitioner vide C.C.No.452 of 2022 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet.

¶39

SRK, J W.P.No.3657 of 2026

¶40

4

¶41

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:

¶42

“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 14^th 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 :- …”

¶43

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 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.

¶44

SRK, J W.P.No.3657 of 2026

¶45

5

¶46

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.

¶47

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:

¶48

“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 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

¶49

1 2020 Crl.L.J. (SC) 572.

¶50

2 1978 (1) SCC 248.

¶51

SRK, J W.P.No.3657 of 2026

¶52

6

¶53

was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law.

¶54

Therefore, such a right to travel abroad cannot be deprived except by just, fair and reasonable procedure.”

¶55

This Court in Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. Union of India and another³ at paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6, observed as under:

¶56

“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.

¶57

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.

¶58

3 2023 (4) ALT 406 (AP).

¶59

SRK, J W.P.No.3657 of 2026

¶60

7

¶61

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 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.

¶62

It is the contention of learned counsel for Writ Petitioner that the daughter of Writ Petitioner is residing in United States of America and is suffering from health issues and requires the presence of petitioner. But, because of pendency of criminal case

¶63

SRK, J W.P.No.3657 of 2026

¶64

8

¶65

in Calendar Case No.452 of 2022, the application made by the Writ Petitioner for issuance of passport was rejected by the respondents.

¶66

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment dated 27.09.2021 in Crl.A.No.1342 of 2017 in the case of Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, after considering Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967, held that the passport authority cannot refuse renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of a criminal case and directed the passport authority to renew the passport.

¶67

The Central Government has also issued GSR No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 stipulating that a no objection order would be required from a Court only if it falls within the ambit of Section 6(2)(f).

¶68

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider the application of the petitioner, for renewal of her Passport No.25-10668262613, without raising any objection relating to the pendency of C.C.No.452 of 2022 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet. It is further observed that if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, it is needless to mention that she has to resort in filing an application before appropriate Court seeking No-objection Certificate (NOC).

¶69

However, this order shall not preclude 4^th respondentStation House Officer, Nadendla Police Station, Guntur district from taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the presence

¶70

SRK, J W.P.No.3657 of 2026

¶71

9

¶72

of the petitioner, for conduct of the investigation of the aforesaid case for any other purposes. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶73