The Karnataka High Court has ruled that passport authorities cannot refuse re-issuance or renewal of passports to individuals who have pending criminal cases at the investigation stage, provided the court has not yet taken cognizance of the offense.

A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed the authorities to adhere to the clarification provided in the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. This memorandum clarifies that the mere filing of FIRs and cases under investigation does not fall under the purview of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act. It further specifies that criminal proceedings will 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.

The bench said “it is expected of the Passport Authorities to act in accordance with the clarification as obtaining in the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 and not drive every passport holder to knock at the doors of this Court, for redressal of their grievance.”

Petitioner Sharath Chandrasekhar, identifying as a lawyer, submitted an application requesting the renewal or re-issuance of a passport. During the process of police verification, it was revealed that the petitioner is involved in three ongoing legal proceedings before the relevant courts in Lucknow.

Subsequently, the petitioner received a letter from the Regional Passport Office notifying him that an adverse verification report had been received from the police. In response, the petitioner provided all requested documents but received no further communication. Consequently, the petitioner initiated the current legal proceedings. The Central Government counsel opposed the plea, arguing that three proceedings are pending against the petitioner, hence the passport issuance cannot be granted.

The bench observed that according to Section 6(2)(f), a passport or travel document can be withheld from its holder if there are any pending proceedings against them before a criminal court in India.

Accordingly, the bench granted the petition and instructed the authorities to review the application submitted by the petitioner for passport renewal or re-issuance within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of the order, or earlier if possible.

Senior Advocate Dhananjay Joshi, represented by Advocate Kashyap N Naik, appeared for the petitioner, while Central Government Counsel Priyanka S Bhat represented the respondent.

Case Title: Sharath Chandrasekhar AND Union of India

Case No: Writ Petition No 18066 OF 2023