AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the two petitioners have preferred the present writ petition primarily seeking a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent no. 2 to process the applications submitted by the petitioners in July/August, 2025.
I have heard Mr. A. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. B. Deka, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. N. Anix Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4.
As per the facts projected in this writ petition, the petitioner no. 1 is the wife of the petitioner no. 2 and they are permanent residents of Keirao Makting Makha Keikai, Police Station – Irilbung, Imphal East District in the State of Manipur. It is stated that the petitioners being followers of Islamic faith, have a desire for Haj pilgrimage. As for undertaking Haj pilgrimage the petitioners are in requirement of passports, they applied for passports individually at the Passport Seva Kendra, Guwahati, Assam and the applications were registered as Application Reference No. [ARN] 25-0059832870 & Application Reference No. [ARN] 25-0060095064 respectively. When the petitioners were expecting processing of their applications, for issuance of the passports, they were informed by letters, both dated 13.10.2025, from the office of the respondent no. 2 that there were objections in respect of their applications. The petitioners were informed that during the course of processing of their application forms, the Police authorities had submitted adverse reports against them. The petitioners were asked to appear in person in the Regional Passport Office, Guwahati on any working day by taking prior online appointment.
The petitioners have stated that on making efforts, they could obtain a copy of the Police Verification Report [Annexure-E] submitted by the respondent no. 4 on 08.09.2025. In the said Report, the respondent no. 4 mentioned about four First Information Reports [FIRs] which were registered at Irilbung Police Station vide – [i] Irilbung Police Station Case no. 57[6]/2009; [ii] Irilbung Police Station Case no. 21[02]/2017; [iii] Irilbung Police Station Case no. 25[02]/2017; and [iv] Irilbung Police Station Case no. 23[2]/2022. It was further mentioned that out of the afore-mentioned four cases registered on the basis of the FIRs, two cases viz. Irilbung Police Station Case no. 57[6]/2009 and Irilbung Police Station Case no. 23[2]/2022 were still under investigation. In so far as the other two cases, Irilbung Police Station Case no. 21[02]/2017 and Irilbung Police Station Case no. 25[02]/2017 were concerned, it was mentioned that final reports were submitted therein on 31.01.2019 and 03.02.2019 respectively. It was further mentioned that any information regarding involvement of the petitioner no. 1 in any political activity could only be obtained from the office of the Superintendent of Police [CID] [SB], Manipur.
Though it is not averred in the writ petition about involvement of the petitioner no. 2 in any criminal case, it has been brought on record by the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 3 that the name of the petitioner no. 2 was involved in an FIR registered as Irilbung Police Station Case no. 80[9]/2007 for the offences under Section 307, Indian Penal Code [IPC] r/w Section 34, IPC and Section 25[1-C], Arms Act and added Section 302, IPC. It is mentioned that in the said case, the petitioner no. 2 was arrested on 16.09.2007 and she was subsequently released on bail on 22.09.2007. It is further mentioned that after investigation, a final report came to be submitted vide Final Report no. 44/IBG-PS/2008 on 20.04.2008. The affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 3 is silent about any other criminal case or any subsequent court proceeding in relation to Final Report dated 20.04.2008.
When the matter of issuance of the passports rested in same position after 13.10.2025, the petitioners have approached this Court by the instant writ petition on the premise that the actions of the respondent authorities in not processing the applications of the petitioners further merely on the pretext of receiving adverse Police Verification Reports in connection with the afore-mentioned cases are clearly arbitrary and unjust, and the same has resulted in violation of the petitioners’ fundamental right.
In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2, it is averred that the petitioners applied for fresh passports under Tatkal Scheme vide Application numbers, referred above. The documents of the petitioners were not found proper for Tatkal Scheme and on the request of the applicants-petitioners, the applications were processed based on pre-Police Verification. Accordingly, regular Police Verification was initiated, which were registered under File no. GU1065667616825 and File no. GU1065667731125 respectively. On receipt of adverse Police Verification Reports, the Objection Letters were issued to the petitioners on 13.10.2025. It has been admitted that out of the four FIRs registered against the petitioner no. 1, two of them ended in final reports and the investigation on the remaining two cases are not yet completed.
It has been contended by the learned CGC appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 that for issuance of a passport, a clear and favourable Police Verification Report is necessary. As per sub-section 6[2][f] of the Passports Act, 1967, the Passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport in respect of an applicant if it is found that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. He has further referred to a Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993 and an Office Memorandum no. VI/401/1/5/2019 dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India to buttress his submission that an applicant against whom criminal court proceedings are pending may be considered for issuance of a passport only upon production of a specific order from the concerned court permitting the applicant to depart from India. He has further submitted that against the petitioner no. 2 also, an FIR was registered which finally ended in a final report, Final Report dated 20.04.2008.
Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 has pointed out about registration of four FIRs against the petitioner no. 1 and one FIR against the petitioner no. 2.
Mr. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that after registration of the four FIRs against the petitioner no. 1, the investigation resulted in final reports in two of them. The investigation in the remaining two cases are still in progress. He has, thus, submitted that till date, no court has taken cognizance of any offence against any of the two petitioners and therefore, the cases of the petitioners are not required to be processed in reference to Section 6[2][f] of the Passports Act, 1967. He has further submitted that the Police Verification Reports, which are dubbed as adverse reports, are only in connection with registration of five FIRs. The Police Verification Reports had also mentioned about submission of three final reports, out of those five cases, and no mention is made about any criminal proceedings pending in any court of law.
I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings.
The matters of issuance, renewal or re-issuance or passports are governed and regulated by the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 [‘the Passports Act’ or ‘the Act’, for short]. It is an Act to provide for issue of passports and travel documents, to regulate the departure from India of citizens of India and for other persons and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto.
Section 5 of the Passports Act has the nominal heading, ‘Applications for passports, travel documents, etc., and orders thereon’. As per sub-section [1] and sub-section [1A], an application for issue of a passport or a travel document under the Passports Act is to be made to the Passport Authority accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed. Sub-section [1B] of Section 5 has provided that every application under the Section shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed. As per Section 2[d] of the Act, ‘prescribed’ means prescribed by rules made under the Passports Act.
Sub-section [2] of Section 5 of the Passports Act has provided that on receipt of an application under Section 5, the Passport authority, after making such enquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, shall, subject to the other provisions of the Act, by order in writing, -
[a] issue the passport or travel document with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel document the endorsement, in respect of the foreign country or countries specified in the application; or
[b] issue the passport or travel document with endorsement, or, as the case may be, make on the passport or travel document the endorsement, in respect of one or more of the foreign countries specified in the application and refuse to make an endorsement in respect of the other country or countries; or
[c] refuse to issue the passport or travel document or, as the case may be, refuse to make on the passport or travel document any endorsement.
As per Section 5[3], where the Passport Authority makes an order under clause [b] or clause [c] of sub-section [2] of Section 5 on the application of any person, it shall have to record in writing a brief statement of its reasons for making such order and furnish to that person on demand a copy of the same unless in any case the Passport Authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interests of the general public to furnish such copy.
Section 6 of the Passport Act with nominal heading, ‘Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.’, deals with refusal of passports and travel documents. For ready reference, Section 6 is quoted hereinbelow in its entirety :-
Section 6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.-
[1] Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any foreign country under clause [b] or clause [c] of sub-section [2] of section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely : -
[a] that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;
[b] that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
[c] that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any other country;
[d] that in the opinion of the Central Government the presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest.
[2] Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country under clause [c] of sub-section [2] of Section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no other ground, namely :-
[a] that the applicant is not a citizen of India;
[b] that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India;
[c] that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
[d] that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country;
[e] that the applicant has, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not less than two years;
[f] that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India;
[g] that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court under any law for the time being in force or that an order prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made by any such court;
[h] that the applicant has been repatriated and has not reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such repatriation;
[i] that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the public interest.
[emphasis supplied in bold]
Section 7 of the Passports Act has prescribed for duration of passports and travel documents, and Section 8 has provided for extension of the period of passports. Section 9 of the Passports Act refers to the conditions and forms of passports and travel documents. By Section 10 of the Passports Act, the Passport Authority has been empowered to make variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents. Section 11 of the Passports Act has provided for appeals and Section 12 has prescribed the offences and penalties. It has been contained in Section 17 of the Passports Act that a passport or travel document issued under the Act shall at all times remain the property of the Central Government.
Section 22 of the Passports Act has empowered the Central Government to grant exemptions. Section 22 reads as under :-
Section 22. Power to exempt.
Where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions, if any, as it may specify in the notification, -
[a] exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; and
[b] as often as may be, cancel any such notification and again subject, by a like notification, the person or class of persons to the operation of such provisions.
Section 22 of the Passports Act has conferred on the Central Government the power, where it considers necessary or expedient in the public interest, to exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of specified provisions of the Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Passports Act, quoted above, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India had issued a Notification no. GSR 570 [E] on 25.08.1993. The relevant excerpts from the Notification no. GSR 570 [E] which was published in the Official Gazette, are reproduced below for reference :-
GSR 570[E] - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause [a] of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 [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, namely :-
[a] the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be issued –
[i] for the period specified in order of the court referred to above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport has to be issued; or
[ii] if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period of one year;
[iii] if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year;
[iv] if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the period of travel abroad specified in the order.
[b] any passport issued in terms of [a][ii] and [a][iii] above can be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court; and provided further that, in the meantime, the order of the court is not cancelled or modified;
[c] any passport issued in terms of [a][i] above can be further renewed only on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel abroad;
[d] the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in force of the passport so issued.
In a subsequent Circular no. V.I/401/1/3/2014 dated 21.08.2014, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, it has been reiterated that the issuance of passports to citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect of offences alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in India is to be administered by the procedure contained in the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993. By the Circular, a standard format of undertaking has been prescribed with a direction that whenever any applicant against whom proceedings before a criminal court are pending would approach any Passport Issuing Authority for passport services, a copy of the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] and a copy of the proforma undertaking are to be given to the applicant with a covering letter directing the applicant to fulfil the requirements prescribed in the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993. Only on submission of the same, the passport application would be processed and the passport would be issued as per the provisions of the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993 and the contents of the court order, subject to submission of other documents and requirements as applicable to other passport applicants.
In continuation of the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India has issued an Office Memorandum no. VI/401/1/5/2019 on 10.10.2019 on the subject :- ‘Issue of passports to applicants against whom criminal cases are pending before a court of law in India’. By this Office Memorandum, all Passport Authorities have been directed to apply the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] strictly in cases where criminal proceedings are pending, to insist on an undertaking in terms of the notification, and to treat a ‘no objection certificate’ or permission granted by a criminal court as prevailing over an adverse police report, while keeping in view that in cases covered by Section 6[2][f] the passport is ordinarily to be issued for a shorter period, consistent with the scheme of the Passports Act and the Passport Rules.
The provisions of the Passports Act, the Passport Rules, the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993 and the Office Memorandum no. VI/401/1/5/2019 on 10.10.2019 came up for consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India and another, [2025] 12 SCR 1307. The following excerpts from the said decision, which are of relevance for the case in hand, are quoted hereinbelow :-
10.On a plain reading, GSR 570[E] does two things. First, it recognises that persons facing criminal proceedings are not to be treated as absolutely disentitled to a passport. Instead, it permits such persons to obtain a passport, notwithstanding Section 6[2][f], where the concerned criminal court has applied its mind and passed an order in relation to issuance or use of the passport and where the applicant furnishes an undertaking to appear before the court as and when required. Secondly, it structures the exercise of that exemption by tying the validity and use of the passport to the terms of the court's order. Thus, where the court specifies a period for which the passport is to be issued, the passport authority must honour that period. Where the court does not stipulate any period, the notification provides default rules, including issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate cases. What the notification does not do is to create a new substantive bar beyond Section 6[2][f], or to insist that the criminal court must, in every case, grant a prior blanket permission to ‘depart from India’ for specified dates as a jurisdictional precondition to the very issue or re-issue of a passport.
11.The OM dated 10.10.2019 does not create a new regime. It reiterates that GSR 570[E] must be ‘strictly applied’, explains the procedure where criminal cases are pending and makes it clear that a ‘no objection certificate’ or permission from the criminal court, read with the applicant's undertaking, may override an adverse police report with reasons recorded by the Passport Officer. It also contemplates situations where more than one court is dealing with the matter and indicates that the orders of all such courts are to be read together. The OM is thus an administrative restatement of the position under Section 6[2][f], Section 22 and GSR 570[E], and cannot add to or cut down the exemption which the notification itself grants.
* * * * * * * * *
15.[…] First, Section 6[2][f] is a ground for refusal at the stage of issue or re-issue, but it is expressly made subject to ‘the other provisions’ of the Act, which include Section 22 and the exemption carved out through GSR 570[E]. Second, GSR 570[E] does not compel the criminal court to authorise a particular journey. It proceeds on the broader premise that where the criminal court permits the applicant to depart from India and the period of validity can be anchored either in the court's order or in the default periods mentioned in the notification, the embargo in Section 6[2] [f] stands lifted to that extent. […]
16.[…] The passport authority is not required, at the renewal stage, to demand a schedule of future journeys or visas which may not yet exist. Its task is to see whether, despite pending proceedings, the criminal courts have chosen to keep the possibility of travel open under their supervision. Once that position is clear, GSR 570[E] applies and the bar under Section 6[2][f] cannot be invoked to refuse renewal altogether.
* * * * * * * * *
19.[…] Section 6[2][f] speaks of ‘proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed’ and is directed at the pre-conviction stage. Once there is a conviction, the situation falls, if at all, within Section 6[2][e], which uses a different threshold and language. […]
20.It must also be noted that denial of renewal of a passport does not operate in a vacuum. This Court has repeatedly held in a catena of judgments that the right to travel abroad and the right to hold a passport are facets of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any restriction on that right must be fair, just and reasonable, and must bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose.
* * * * * * * * *
22.It is important to keep distinct the possession of a valid passport and the act of travelling abroad. A passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a visa and, subject to other laws and orders, to cross international borders. Whether a person who is on bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal court, which can grant or withhold permission, impose conditions, insist on undertakings, or refuse leave altogether. […] To refuse renewal on the speculative apprehension that the appellant might misuse the passport is, in effect, to second-guess the criminal courts' assessment of risk and to assume for the passport authority a supervisory role which the statute does not envisage.
What emerges from the above discussion is that an applicant applying for issuance of a passport or renewal of a passport, can be refused on the grounds outlined in clause [a] to clause [i] of sub-section [2] of Section 6 of the Passports Act and on no other ground. Clause [f] of Section 6[2] is in relation to proceedings in respect of an offence. Section 6[2][f] has stated that the Passport Authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document to an applicant on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India. Section 6[2] is made subject to the other provisions of the Passports Act and amongst such provisions, Section 22, quoted above, which has provided the power to exempt to the Central Government, is also included. By the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993, the Central Government by exercising the power to exempt under Section 22 has provided that a person facing criminal proceedings is not debarred for applying for issuance of a passport or renewal of a passport earlier issued to him. In other words, an applicant facing criminal proceedings is not to be treated as absolutely disentitled to a passport or renewal of passport. Therefore, an applicant against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him are pending before a criminal court, has to produce an order from the concerned criminal court permitting him to depart from India. In such a case, a passport can be issued or renewed, subject to the conditions mentioned in the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993. If in the order, the concerned criminal court specifies a period then the passport is to be issued or renewed for such period.
Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, the respondent no. 2 received two adverse Police Verification Reports reporting about registration of four criminal cases against the petitioner no. 1 and registration of one criminal case against the petitioner no. 2. The details of the four FIRs registered against the petitioner no. 1 are already mentioned hereinabove. It needs iteration that two of the said four cases, that is, Irilbung Police Station Case no. 21[2]/2017 and Irilbung Police Station Case no. 25[02]/2017 resulted in final forms, after completion of investigation, vide Final Report no. 3/2019 dated 31.01.2019 and Final Report no. 4/2019 dated 03.02.2019. The only case registered against the petitioner no. 2, that is, Irilbung Police Station Case no. 80[9]2007, after investigation, also resulted in a final report vide Final Report no. 44/IBG-PS/2008 dated 20.04.2008.
By the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993 and the Office Memorandum no. VI/401/1/5/2019 on 10.10.2019, it has been explained that when criminal cases are pending, then a No Objection Certificate or an order granting permission from the criminal court, coupled with the applicant’s undertaking, would override an adverse Police Verification Report with reasons recorded by the Passport Officer. It is further mentioned that mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation do not come under the purview of Section 6[2][f] of the Passports Act, and that criminal proceedings would only be considered pending against an applicant if a case has been registered before any court of law and the court has taken cognizance of the same.
When the Police, after investigation, submit a final report, the jurisdictional Magistrate competent to take cognizance may either accept the final report and not initiate any proceedings further, or may disagree with the final report and take a view that there is sufficient ground for further proceeding, take cognizance of the offence and issue process.
No material has been brought on record by the parties that the jurisdictional court competent to take cognizance of the offences have taken cognizance of any offences against any of the two petitioners. It is only when criminal proceedings are pending before a criminal court of competent jurisdiction, such court is required to pass an order either permitting an accused facing the criminal proceedings to depart from India, exempting him from the operation of the provisions of Clause [f] of sub-section [2] of Section 6 of the Passports Act, subject to imposition of such other conditions, or otherwise, which jurisdiction is vested on it in view of the Gazette Notification no. GSR 570 [E] dated 25.08.1993, a statutory notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause [a] of Section 22 of the Passports Act. If no criminal proceedings are pending before a court, then the court would not derive the jurisdiction to grant or deny such permission. If no criminal proceedings pending against the two petitioners before a criminal court of competent jurisdiction as on date, it cannot be said that the provisions of Clause [f] of sub-section [2] of Section 6 of the Passports Act would stand in the way of processing of the applications of the petitioners for issuance of the passports.
In view of the discussion made and for the reasons assigned above, this Court has reached a view that there is no legal impediment under Section 6[2][f] of the Passports Act for the Passport Issuing Authority to process the applications of the petitioners, if the fact situation canvassed in this writ petition, as considered above, regarding no pendency of criminal proceedings as obtaining on this date, are correct.
In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :-
[i] The petitioners shall individually submit their reply to the objection letter dated 13.10.2025 issued to them by the respondent no. 2 within a period of fifteen days from today, stating therein the present status / position obtaining in relation to the FIRs and Final Reports, mentioned hereinabove, more particularly, on the aspects whether any cognizance has been taken or not by any criminal court of competent jurisdiction on the date of submission of the replies.
[ii] On receipt of the replies from the petitioners, the Passport Issuing Authority shall ascertain itself whether the condition laid down in Section 6[2][f] of the Passports Act is in existence or not, within a period of fifteen days therefrom, by making verification from its own end, if it is expedient and necessary.
[iii] If the condition under Section 6[2][f] of the Passports Act is found to be not in existence, the Passport Issuing Authority shall thereafter, proceed to process the applications of the petitioners for passports strictly in terms of the provisions of the Passports Act and all other extant rules and regulations, so as to bring the entire process to a finality as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month, keeping in view that the right to hold a passport is a facet of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.