Can Courts Limit Passport Renewal Due to Ongoing Criminal Cases?

The right to travel abroad is a valuable facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, this right is not absolute and is regulated by statutory provisions under the Passports Act, 1967. A recurring legal question is whether the existence of a pending criminal case can justify refusal to issue, renew, or re-issue a passport. The Karnataka High Court in Smt. Surumi Shiji v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2026) addressed this precise issue while dealing with the seizure of a passport in criminal proceedings and the scope of judicial power to order its release.

This judgment provides important clarity on the interplay between Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, the 1993 Central Government notification permitting issuance of short-validity passports, and the jurisdiction of criminal courts under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC (now Sections 497 & 503, BNSS). The decision reaffirms that pendency of criminal proceedings creates a statutory embargo on passport issuance, but also recognises a mechanism for conditional travel through short-validity passports.

Factual Background

The petitioner, Smt. Surumi Shiji, was an accused in a criminal case registered for offences under Sections 120-B, 420, and 468 IPC [Sections 61(2), 318 (4), 336 (3) of BNS]. During the investigation, her passport and mobile phone were seized by the police. After the filing of the charge-sheet, she approached the Magistrate seeking release of these articles under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC. The trial court rejected her application, and the Sessions Court affirmed the rejection.

Aggrieved, she filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) before the Karnataka High Court seeking:

• Setting aside the orders refusing release of her passport;
• A direction to permit her to travel abroad; and
• Release of the seized mobile phone.

The core issue before the High Court was whether a criminal court could order the release of a passport despite the statutory bar under the Passports Act.

Statutory Framework

1. Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967

This provision mandates refusal of passport issuance when:

“Proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court in India.”

The language is mandatory, leaving little discretion with passport authorities once the pendency of a criminal case is established.

2. Section 10 – Impounding and Revocation

The Passport Authority may impound or revoke a passport if criminal proceedings are pending. This reinforces the legislative intent to prevent unrestricted foreign travel by persons facing trial.

3. GSR 570(E) Notification, 25 August 1993

Recognising that a blanket bar may cause hardship, the Central Government issued a notification under Section 22, exempting such persons from Section 6(2)(f) if they obtain permission from the criminal court. The passport in such cases can be issued:

• For the period specified by the court.
• If no period is specified, for one year.
• Renewable annually, subject to continued court permission.

This notification creates a balanced regime, protecting the interests of justice while allowing legitimate travel.

Judicial Reasoning of the Karnataka High Court

1. Criminal Court Cannot Bypass the Passport Act

The High Court held that an application under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC seeking release of a passport is not maintainable, because:

• The passport is not merely a physical article;
• Its issuance and validity are governed exclusively by the Passports Act.
• Criminal courts cannot override the statutory bar in Section 6(2)(f).

The Court observed that orders of the Magistrate refusing release were legally correct and did not warrant interference.

2. Proper Remedy Lies Before Passport Authorities

Instead of seeking release from the criminal court, the petitioner must:

• Approach the Regional Passport Officer;
• Apply for a short-validity passport;
• Produce a court order permitting foreign travel.

Thus, the jurisdiction lies with the executive authority, not the criminal court.

3. Reliance on Earlier Precedent

In Kadar Valli Shaik v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 406, the court held that the issue includes renewal and Section 6(2)(f) applies equally to renewal; passport can be granted only in terms of the 25.08.1993 GSR 570 notification with court permission.

4. Distinction Between Passport and Other Seized Property

While denying release of the passport, the Court allowed release of the mobile phone, applying the Supreme Court ruling in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002), which discourages indefinite retention of property by police.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court in Smt. Surumi Shiji v. State of Karnataka (2026), held that courts cannot directly order renewal or release of a passport when criminal proceedings are pending, as Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act mandates refusal in such cases.

Renewal and re-issuance stand on the same footing as fresh issuance, and the proper remedy is to seek court permission for travel and apply for a short-validity passport under the 1993 GSR 570 Notification. The ruling balances personal liberty with the need to secure the presence of the accused during trial, reaffirming that passport rights are subject to statutory restrictions.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams