The Supreme Court emphasized that liberty in India’s Constitution is not a privilege granted by the State but its foremost responsibility. This came while hearing a passport renewal plea of a coal block convict facing UAPA charges.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court highlighted that liberty in India’s constitutional framework is not merely a privilege granted by the State, but rather its foremost responsibility.
This assertion came during a ruling concerning the passport renewal request of an individual who was convicted in a coal block case and is currently facing charges in another coal mining case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Court stated,
“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 State may, where statute so provides, regulate or restrain that freedom in the interests of justice, security or public order but such restraint must be narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and clearly anchored in law,”
The Bench, composed of Justices Vikram Nath and AG Masih, also noted that converting procedural safeguards into rigid barriers or allowing temporary disabilities to become indefinite exclusions disrupts the balance between state authority and individual dignity, thereby jeopardizing the promises of the Constitution.
The appellant, Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, had a passport that expired in August 2023. Prior to that, the NIA Court in Ranchi had permitted the release of his passport for renewal, stipulating that he must deposit the renewed passport with the court and not travel abroad without prior approval.
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal held an ordinary passport issued in 2013, which expired on 28 August 2023. He is Accused No. 18 in an NIA case arising from alleged levy collection and funding of a proscribed organisation in the coal mining belt of Jharkhand. The NIA has charge-sheeted him under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, IPC, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Separately, Agarwal was also convicted in a CBI coal block case in Delhi in April 2022 and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The Delhi High Court later suspended the sentence, but imposed a clear condition: he cannot leave India without its prior permission.
Similarly, the Delhi High Court, which had suspended Agarwal’s sentence in the CBI coal block case, granted a no-objection for renewing his passport for ten years, provided he obtained prior permission before leaving the country.
Despite these judicial directives, the Regional Passport Office in Kolkata rejected the renewal application, citing Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act due to ongoing criminal proceedings.
Also Read: Wife Can Apply for Passport Without Husband’s Permission or Signature: Madras High Court
The Calcutta High Court upheld this decision, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 6(2)(f) does not constitute an absolute prohibition against issuing passports to individuals involved in criminal cases.
Instead, it permits such individuals to secure a passport as long as the relevant criminal court has considered the request and issued an appropriate order regarding the issuance or use of the passport, and where the applicant provides an undertaking to appear before the court when necessary.
The Bench observed that the Calcutta High Court had misinterpreted the exemption notification by insisting that the renewal could only be granted if a criminal court specifically authorized a particular foreign journey.
The Court remarked,
“Nothing in the Passports Act requires 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,”
It emphasized that the passport authority is not obligated at the time of renewal to request a detailed itinerary of future travels or visas that may not yet be available.
Instead, the responsibility lies in confirming whether the criminal courts have allowed the possibility of travel under their supervision, in which case the restriction under Section 6(2)(f) cannot be invoked to deny renewal.
The Court also differentiated between possessing a valid passport and actually traveling abroad, stating,
“Whether a person who is on bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal court, which can grant or withhold permission, impose conditions, insist on undertakings, or refuse leave altogether.”
Furthermore, it noted that denying passport renewal based on speculative fears of misuse equates to second-guessing the criminal court’s assessment of risk and overstepping the passport authority’s role.
In light of these points, the Supreme Court directed the passport authorities to issue Agarwal a standard passport for a decade.
The renewed passport must remain subject to all existing and future orders from the NIA Court in Ranchi and the Delhi High Court, particularly regarding the conditions that he must not leave India without the court’s permission and must deposit the passport with the court as required.
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium represented the appellant, while Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Union government.
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs Union of India
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
