In a hearing that quietly but firmly touched the nerve of personal liberty, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday ruled that the mere pendency of criminal cases cannot become a permanent roadblock to renewing a citizen’s passport. The case involved businessman Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, whose passport had expired while he was facing proceedings in an NIA case and an appeal against a conviction in Delhi.
The courtroom mood was measured, but the message was clear: liberty cannot be reduced to paperwork hurdles.
Background
Agarwal’s ordinary passport expired in August 2023. At that time, he was an accused in a National Investigation Agency case in Jharkhand and had also been convicted in a separate CBI coal block matter, though his sentence was suspended by the Delhi High Court.
Both courts had allowed him to seek renewal of his passport, with strict conditions. He was barred from leaving India without prior permission and required to deposit the renewed passport back with the trial court. Despite these safeguards, the Regional Passport Office in Kolkata declined to renew his passport for the normal ten-year period, citing Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, which deals with pending criminal proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court backed the passport authority, prompting Agarwal to approach the apex court.
Court’s Observations
Writing for the Bench, Justice Vikram Nath opened with a reminder that “liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation.” The Court said the right to travel and hold a passport flows from Article 21 and cannot be curtailed in a mechanical way.
The judges took a close look at the Passports Act and the 1993 government notification that allows passports to be issued even when criminal cases are pending, subject to court supervision. The Bench observed that the lower courts had treated the law as an “unyielding bar”, ignoring this exemption framework.
“The statute does not require a criminal court to convert every permission into a one-time licence for a specific foreign trip,” the Bench noted, adding that courts can allow passport renewal while still controlling every instance of foreign travel.
Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that holding a valid passport and actually travelling abroad are two different things. “A passport is a civil document,” the judges observed, stressing that travel permissions remain firmly within the criminal court’s control.
The Court also rejected the argument that Agarwal’s conviction alone justified denial, pointing out that Section 6(2)(f) applies at the pre-conviction stage, and in any case, the Delhi High Court had consciously allowed renewal.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s orders and directed the authorities to re-issue Agarwal’s passport for the full ten-year period within four weeks.
The Bench made it clear that the passport will remain subject to all existing and future orders of the NIA court and the Delhi High Court, including the condition that Agarwal cannot leave India without prior permission. The judgment ends there, restoring the balance between State control and individual liberty without touching the merits of the criminal cases themselves.
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Another
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 17769 of 2025
Case Type: Civil Appeal (Passport Renewal / Fundamental Rights)
Decision Date: 19 December 2025