Right to passport is part of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21: Delhi HC

The court delivered the ruling while setting aside Centre’s decision order impounding the passport of Yogesh Raheja, former director of Raheja Developers

The Delhi high court has held that right to possess a passport and to travel abroad constitutes an essential facet of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that any such action curtailing or affecting this right must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice.

The bench said any state action impinging upon the right to hold a passport must satisfy the test of reasonableness. (Image sourced from Paytm website)

“The right to hold a passport and to travel abroad is an integral facet of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It follows that any State action impinging upon the right to hold a passport must satisfy the test of reasonableness and must be in conformity with the principles of natural justice,” a bench of justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav the court held his February 20 order.

The court delivered the ruling while setting aside Centre’s decision order impounding the passport of Yogesh Raheja, former director of Raheja Developers.

On January 17, 2025, the Centre decided to impound Yogesh’s passport on the ground that, while applying for its renewal, he had failed to disclose the pendency of an FIR registered against him in 2018. Although Yogesh preferred an appeal against this decision, the Centre rejected the same on March 25, 2025.

Yogesh had then approached the court against Centre’s January and March orders. In the petition, argued by Sandeep Kapur, Senior Partner at Karanjawala & Co., it was contended that the mere registration or pendency of an FIR does not amount to the pendency of criminal proceedings within the meaning of Sections 6 and 10 of the Passports Act, 1967.

To be sure, while Section 6 empowers the passport authority to refuse issuance or renewal of a passport in specified circumstances, including where criminal proceedings are pending before a court in India, Section 10 confers the power to vary or cancel endorsements, impound, or revoke a passport on various grounds, including where proceedings in respect of an offence are pending before a criminal court.

Considering the contentions, the court said that Centre’s decision was legally unsustainable as the trial court was yet to take cognisance of the FIR.

It also relied on Supreme Court’s decision in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2025), wherein it was held that the underlying object of Sections 6 and 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 is to ensure that a person facing criminal proceedings remains subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts. The Supreme Court further observed that an indefinite refusal to renew a passport would amount to a disproportionate and unreasonable restriction on an individual’s liberty.

““The case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal involved a scenario where cognizance had been taken and criminal proceedings were actively pending. The Supreme Court held that even in that more advanced factual situation, Section 6(2)(f) of the Act is not an absolute bar. In the case at hand, cognizance had not been taken at the time of impounding. In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the decision passed by the respondents cannot be sustained. Accordingly, orders dated 17.01.2025 and 25.3.2025 stand set aside,” the court said in its order.