उच्चतम न्यायालय ने निर्णय दिया है कि व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता (Personal Liberty) के अंतर्गत पासपोर्ट रखने और विदेश यात्रा करने का अधिकार अनुच्छेद 21 का अभिन्न अंग है, इसलिए केवल लंबित आपराधिक मामलों के आधार पर पासपोर्ट नवीनीकरण को खारिज नहीं किया जा सकता।
New Delhi, 29 December 2025: The Supreme Court has ruled that liberty is not a gift of the State but its foremost obligation, and the right to hold a passport and travel abroad is an essential facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment arose from a petition by Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, whose passport renewal was refused by the Regional Passport Office citing pending criminal proceedings. The petitioner challenged the refusal, contending that it violated his fundamental right to personal liberty.
Bench: Supreme Court of India
Relevant Law:
• Article 21, Constitution of India
• Section 6(2)(f), Passports Act, 1967
Key Issues:
• Can the State deny passport renewal solely due to pending criminal cases?
• Can passport authorities demand travel itinerary or visas at the renewal stage?
Observations of the Court:
• The Court held that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad and hold a passport.
• Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act cannot be applied as a blanket bar against renewal merely because criminal proceedings are pending.
• Passport authorities cannot demand future travel itinerary or visas at the renewal stage.
• Criminal courts may impose conditional permissions, but administrative authorities cannot outright deny passport issuance.
• The Court emphasized that liberty is the State’s foremost obligation, not a discretionary privilege.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court directed the passport authorities to renew the petitioner’s passport for the normal validity period, subject to any conditions imposed by the criminal courts.
Significance:
• Reinforces that freedom of movement is a fundamental right.
• Clarifies the limits of administrative discretion under the Passports Act.
• Establishes that pending criminal proceedings alone cannot block constitutional rights.