Right to travel abroad, hold passport- facets of personal liberty: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said, whether a person who is on bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal court to decide, as it can grant or withhold permission, impose conditions, insist on undertakings, or refuse leave altogether.

However, to refuse renewal of passport on the speculative apprehension that it might be misused is, in effect, to second-guess the criminal courts’ assessment of risk and to assume, it added.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Augustine George Masih set aside the Calcutta High Court's judgments by the division and single bench that dismissed a plea by Mahesh Kumar Agrawal to renew his ordinary passport, expired on August 28, 2023.

The court directed the respondent authorities to re-issue an ordinary passport to the appellant for the normal period of 10 years from the date of issue, subject to compliance with the usual procedural requirements, within a period of four weeks.

In its judgment on December 19, 2025, the bench said, the right to travel abroad and the right to hold a passport are facets of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any restriction on that right must be fair, just and reasonable, and must bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose.

"Liberty, in our constitutional scheme, is not a gift of the State but its first obligation. The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,'' the court added.

Agrawal, an industrialist, was convicted in a case related to coal block allocation scam case by a Delhi court but the High Court suspended his four year jail term. He was also on bail in a separate 2018 case filed by the NIA in Jharkhand's Chatra for alleged extortion, levy collection and related activities in the coal mining areas and funding of a proscribed organisation. He obtained no objection from respective courts to renew his passport but the passport authorities in Kolkata denied the renewal. The High Court also refused to interfere.

Considering Agrawal's plea, the court underlined the distinction between the possession of a valid passport and the act of travelling abroad. It said a passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a visa and, subject to other laws and orders, to cross international borders.

In the case, the bench noted, the High Court treated Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act as an unyielding bar so long as any criminal proceeding is pending, unless the criminal court simultaneously authorises a specific foreign trip for a defined period.

Allowing the appeal, the apex court held the HC's reading unduly narrowed the effect of the notification GSR 570(E). It pointed out, nothing in the Passports Act required the criminal court to convert every permission into a one-time licence to undertake a particular journey.

The statute equally permits the court to allow renewal of the passport while retaining complete control over each instance of foreign travel by insisting on its prior leave, the bench said.