Allowed

B v. v Suryanarayana v Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Mar 2026WP/5734/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the writ petition filing by BVV Suryanarayana questioning a one-year passport renewal. Granted a ten-year renewal despite pending criminal cases due to No-objection Certificates and professional necessity.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner exempted from Section 6(2)(f) restrictions; passport renewed for ten years; direction to concerned authority for renewal. Travel subject to prior court permission.

B v v Suryanarayana Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010105032026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3327]

¶4

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.5734 OF 2026

Between:

BVV Suryanarayana

...PETITIONER

AND

Union of India and another

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.T RAGHU PRASAD

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶17

1.PELLETI RAJESH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶19

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent in renewing the petitioner’s passport for a validity period of one year instead of renewing it for the standard period of ten years.

¶20

Case of the petitioner is that he is an Advocate and in past he served as a Marine Engineer with Dynamic Propulsion Specialization, presently hired as a Consultant by Saipem Srl, Italy, through Global Petro Services (GPS), Zurich, Switzerland.

¶21

SRK, J WP No.5734 of 2026

¶22

¶23

He has to travel to various Countries every month on his professional assignments. He is holding a passport bearing No.Z3696305, issued on 27.04.2016 and, it would expire by 26.04.2026. Therefore, he applied for renewal of his passport before the respondents in the month of November 2025. Since criminal cases vide CC No.737 of 2016 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional Mahila Magistrate, at Vijayawada and CC No.9295 of 2021 on the file of the learned IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Hyderabad, are pending against him, he obtained requisite No-objection Certificates from the concerned Magistrate Courts and filed along with the application for renewal. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite filing appropriate No-objection Certificates from the concerned Courts, the respondents renewed his passport for a validity of one year from 23.01.2026 to 22.01.2027 instead of renewing it for a standard period of ten (10) years. Hence, he filed the present Writ Petition.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel and perused the material placed on record.

¶25

A learned single Judge of this Court in W.P No.30373 of 2022, dated 28.09.2022, observed as follows:-

¶26

“9. A learned Single Judge of the High Court at Madras dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.20058 of 2020 held that mere pendency of a First Information Report cannot be the legal basis for denial of

¶27

SRK, J WP No.5734 of 2026

¶28

¶29

issuance of a regular passport to the petitioner and that it is only after cognizance is taken by an appropriate Court that it can be held that criminal proceedings have commenced and issuance or renewal of the passport would be depend on no objection being given by the concerned Court.

¶30

The Central Government has also issued G.S.R.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).”

¶31

In view of the fact that Section 6(2)(f) would arise only when there is a pending proceedings before the Criminal Court after cognizance is taken, it would have to be held that as of now there is no pending criminal proceeding before the Court.”

¶32

In Narige Ravindranath vs. The Union of India and others¹ , the High Court for the State of Telangana held as follows:

¶33

“6. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2013 (15) SCC page 570 in Sumit Mehta v State of NCT of Delhi at para 13 observed as under:

¶34

"The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a

¶35

1 W.P.No.25141 of 2023, dated 03.10.2023

¶36

SRK, J WP No.5734 of 2026

¶37

¶38

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."

¶39

The Division Bench of the Apex Court in its judgment dated 09.04.2019 reported in LAWS 2019(2) SCC online SC 2048 in Satish Chandra Verma v Union of India (UOI) and others at para 4 observed as under:

¶40

"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 can be affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and this freedom is a genuine human right."

¶41

In the case on hand, grievance of the petitioner is that despite filing appropriate No-objection Certificates from the concerned Courts, the respondents renewed his passport for a validity of one year from 23.01.2026 to 22.01.2027 instead of renewing it for a standard period of ten (10) years and since he has to travel to various Countries almost every month on his professional assignments, it is essential for him for long valid

¶42

SRK, J WP No.5734 of 2026

¶43

¶44

passport. In the light of the settled legal position and the purpose pleaded by the petitioner for visiting abroad and viewed the facts of the present case in the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court exempts the petitioner from the operation of provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 in terms of the G.S.R.No.570(E), dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs and directs the authority concerned for renewal of passport to the petitioner, without reference to the aforesaid criminal cases pending against him for a period of ten (10) years under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980.

¶45

Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior permission from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court.

¶46