MoEA notification that even during the pendency of criminal case, passport could be issued/renewed; Allahabad High Court reiterates

Allahabad High Court


Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue a passport in favor of the petitioner, the division bench of Siddhartha Varma* and Ajit Singh, JJ. issued the following directions:

  • The passport form of the petitioner for the issuance of a passport be considered within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the Regional Passport Officer.

  • The Director General of Police must instruct his officers to give a report regarding the pendency of reports in non-cognizable cases after appropriate and proper application of mind.

  • Passport applications should not be rejected under section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, if orders of the Court, where the criminal case is pending, have been passed as per the Government order dated 25-8-1993.

In the case at hand, the petitioner on 28-6-22 had filled-up an online application form for the issuance of a passport and he was given an appointment to appear before the passport office on 5-8-2022.When the petitioner reached before the passport office, he was informed that there was a police report against the petitioner which stated that there were reports regarding non-cognizable cases and therefore, the passport could not be issued to him.

The Court said that no non-cognizable report which was registered could be taken into cognizance if no investigation was ordered by the Magistrate.

Further, it said that even during the pendency of any criminal case, passport could be issued/renewed as per the Ministry of External Affairs, Noti. No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25-8-1993, if the Court passes orders for that purpose.

The Court noted that the application of the petitioner was rejected based on two reports of non-cognizable cases. Further, the Director General of Police has also given his view that the reports regarding the non-cognizable cases could not be made the basis for rejecting an application for issuance of passport if they had not been investigated into.

[Basoo Yadav v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine All 849, decided on 16-12-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Counsel for Petitioner:- Advocate Ramesh Chandra Yadav;

Advocate Ram Krishna Mishra;

Counsel for Respondent:- ASGI Narendra Singh.

*Apoorva Goel, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court


Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.