The Supreme Court of India, in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, reaffirmed that liberty is not a gift of the State but its foremost obligation. The Court stressed that any restriction on the right to travel must be narrow, proportionate, and clearly grounded in law, ensuring that procedures do not become unreasonable barriers to dignity and freedom. It relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which established that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The case arose from three writ petitions filed by individuals facing pending criminal proceedings who were unable to renew or reissue their passports, affecting their employment. In one instance, a Magistrate denied a no-objection certificate (NOC), stating that permission was only needed for actual foreign travel, not renewal. In other cases, seafarers discovered pending summons during police verification, and despite no cognizance being taken, their passport renewals were stalled, severely impacting their livelihood.
Interpreting the Passports Act 1967, the Court clarified that the authority to issue or refuse passports lies primarily with passport authorities and must be exercised only on specific grounds under Section 6. It emphasized that the law is meant to regulate travel, not to create arbitrary restrictions that infringe on fundamental rights.
The Court also referred to Rule 12 of the Passport Rules 1980, stating that passports are generally valid for ten years and should be renewed accordingly unless valid reasons are recorded. Reiterating precedents like Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI, the Court held that denial of passports to individuals not proven guilty must be avoided, as the right to travel is integral to life and liberty.
To address practical difficulties, the Court issued clear guidelines. It directed that passports should be renewed as per rules unless a reasoned court order states otherwise. Applicants can submit undertakings and affidavits verified by criminal courts instead of mandatory NOCs, and authorities should avoid unnecessary procedural hurdles.
Further, applications for NOC must include full case details, and courts must verify compliance, including attendance in hearings. Background checks by prosecutors are only for information, and serious offences must be evaluated carefully by courts. For fresh passport applications, the Court clarified that NOC should not be insisted upon, ensuring a smoother and fairer process.