Right to Passport as a Constitutional Liberty

Supreme Court reaffirmation on liberty

Right to Passport as a Constitutional Liberty: The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that personal liberty is not a privilege granted by the State but its first constitutional obligation. The Court ruled that the right to hold or renew a passport flows directly from Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment strengthens the idea that liberty cannot be curtailed through administrative rigidity.

The Court clarified that the mere existence of pending criminal proceedings does not automatically bar a person from obtaining a passport. Any restriction on liberty must have a clear legal basis and must satisfy constitutional tests.

Static GK fact: Article 21 was expanded through judicial interpretation to include several unenumerated rights, including dignity, privacy, and free movement.

Case background and dispute

The ruling arose from the case Mahesh Agarwal vs Union of India. The petitioner sought renewal of his passport while facing criminal proceedings. He had been convicted in a coal block-related case and was also facing proceedings under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in another matter.

Despite receiving permission from both the trial court and the High Court, subject to conditions, the passport authority rejected the renewal. The rejection was based solely on the existence of pending criminal cases.

This administrative refusal triggered constitutional scrutiny by the apex court.

Bench observations and reasoning

The Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice A. G. Masih emphasized that liberty occupies a central position in India’s constitutional framework. The Court observed that restrictions on liberty must be necessary, proportionate, and grounded in statutory authority.

The judgment made it clear that executive authorities cannot override or second-guess judicial assessments made by criminal courts. When a competent court permits passport issuance with safeguards, administrative authorities are bound to respect it.

Static GK Tip: The doctrine of proportionality requires that State action limiting fundamental rights must be the least restrictive means available.

Article 21 and freedom of movement

The Court reiterated that Article 21 covers freedoms such as movement, travel, and pursuit of livelihood. Holding a passport is an essential aspect of these freedoms in a globalized world.

Any restraint imposed by the State must be narrowly tailored to serve legitimate objectives like public order, national security, or administration of justice. Blanket denials without individualized assessment violate constitutional guarantees.

Interpretation of the Passports Act

Under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, passport authorities may refuse issuance when criminal proceedings are pending. However, the Court clarified that this provision does not operate as an absolute bar.

If a criminal court, after due application of mind, permits passport issuance or renewal with conditions, the passport authority must comply. Administrative discretion cannot replace judicial determination.

Key clarifications by the Court

The Court drew a clear distinction between possession of a passport and permission to travel abroad. Possession merely enables identification and visa applications, while actual travel depends on court approval.

The Court also held that passport authorities should not demand future travel plans or speculate about misuse. Risk assessment lies exclusively with the criminal courts, not executive officials.

Static GK fact: Passports function as civil identity documents and do not by themselves authorize international travel.

Liberty even in serious offences

Addressing concerns related to UAPA, the Court stressed that seriousness of charges alone cannot justify indefinite deprivation of liberty. Temporary restrictions must not turn into permanent exclusions through administrative inertia.

Static Usthadian Current Affairs Table

Right to Passport as a Constitutional Liberty: