Ajith Ranka v. Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.24119 OF 2026 (GM-PASS)

BETWEEN:

AJITH RANKA S/O LATE MAHAVEER RANKA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, 30TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. DHIRAJ.A.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHAWAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110011

¶2REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, 8TH BLOCK,

by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43272( WP(No.(24119(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010532492026( ( ( 80,FEET,ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095, …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SMT.,RESHMA.K.THAMMAIAH,,CGC), , , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,&,227,OF,THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, VIDE, LETTER, REFERENCE, NO, OBJ/1056127235/26, DATED, 27.07.2026, IN, FILE, NO.BN1077118851326,PRODUCED,AT,ANNEXURE-K,ISSUED,BY, R2, SEEKING, FOR, PROOF, OF, CLEARANCE, OR, TRAVEL, PERMISSION, FROM, COURT, FOR, REISSUE/RENEWAL, OF, PASSPORT, BEARING, NO., ZA557310, REQUESTED, VIDE, APPLICATION, REFERENCE, NO., 26-1063624988, HOLDING, THE, SAME,TO,BE,ILLEGAL,(ANNEXURE-J),AND,ETC., , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, ,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,SURAJ,GOVINDARAJ, , ( (

ORAL ORDER

¶1Smt. Reshma.K.Thammaiah, learned CGC accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶2The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(i) To quash the acknowledgment vide Letter reference No:OBJ/1056127235/26 dated

27.07.2026 in file no.BN1077118851326 produced at ANNEXURE-K, issued by Respondent No.2 seeking for proof of clearance or travel permission from court for reissue/renewal of passport bearing no. ZA557310 requested vide application reference no. 26-1063624988 [Annexure-J] holding the same to be illegal.

(ii) To direct respondent no.2 to reissue/renewal of Petitioner's passport bearing no. ZA557310 requested vide application reference no. 26-1063624988 with Passport application file no. BN1077118851326 for permissible period in accordance with law vide application receipt produced at ANNEXURE-J.

(iii) To issue any other suitable writ or order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶3The petitioner is facing criminal proceedings. On an earlier occasion, the respondent had raised an objection to the re-issuance of the petitioner's passport on that ground. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had

approached this Court by filing W.P. No.37182/2025. By order dated

16.12.2025, this Court directed the respondent to issue a short validity passport to the petitioner. However, it was made clear that the petitioner could travel abroad only after obtaining the permission of the Court before which the criminal proceedings were pending.

¶4The short validity passport issued pursuant to the aforesaid order has since expired. The petitioner thereafter applied for renewal of the passport. During the processing of the application, the respondent issued a communication dated

27.07.2026 (Annexure-K), informing the petitioner that criminal proceedings were pending against him and calling upon him either to produce proof that the proceedings had concluded or to furnish permission granted by the concerned Court for travel abroad, so that the application could be processed.

¶5Aggrieved by the said communication dated 27.07.2026, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the same. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to renew and re-issue the passport.

¶6This Court has noticed that a large number of writ petitions are being filed raising the same issue. In many of these cases, applicants whose passports have expired

after being issued for a short period pursuant to orders of this Court or the competent criminal court are once again required to approach this Court for renewal. The Passport Authorities continue to raise similar objections solely on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending, even though the legal position governing such cases remains substantially the same. This has resulted in repeated litigation involving identical questions of law.

¶7The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887, has recently categorically held that right to travel is a fundamental right and the same cannot be infringed upon by delay in issuance of a passport or refusal to issue a passport.

¶8The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the communication dated 27.07.2026 is only a notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish the required particulars and that, instead of approaching this Court, the petitioner ought to have responded to the same. This submission, however, cannot be accepted.

¶9A reading of the communication dated 27.07.2026 shows that it merely calls upon the petitioner to produce proof that the criminal proceedings have concluded or to furnish permission granted by the concerned Court for travel abroad. The communication does not indicate that

the application for renewal of the passport would be considered if the petitioner were to state that the criminal proceedings are still pending but undertake not to travel abroad without obtaining the prior permission of the Court before which those proceedings are pending. In the absence of such an indication, it cannot now be contended that the petitioner ought to have understood the requirement and furnished such an undertaking. If the Passport Authority is willing to process an application on the basis of such an undertaking, the same must be clearly stated in the notice itself so that the applicant is aware of what is required and is afforded an effective opportunity to respond.

¶10This case also highlights a recurring issue. This Court is repeatedly called upon to consider petitions filed by persons who have earlier been issued short validity passports pursuant to judicial orders and who are required to seek renewal after the expiry of those passports. Since short validity passports are ordinarily issued for only one year, applicants are compelled to undergo the same process repeatedly while the criminal proceedings continue, which in many cases take several years to conclude. This results in avoidable hardship to the applicants and unnecessary litigation before this Court.

¶11The authorities must also take into account the practical difficulties faced by passport holders. Many foreign countries require a passport to have a minimum remaining validity of six months before granting a visa. A passport that is valid only for a short period may therefore become of limited practical use, even if it has been issued. These practical considerations deserve due attention while framing the policy governing the issuance and renewal of passports in cases where criminal proceedings are pending.

¶12The Passport Authorities should therefore examine whether, in appropriate cases, a short validity passport can be issued for a longer period, subject to suitable safeguards and conditions, instead of limiting its validity to one year in every case. Such a policy would strike a balance between the need to ensure the availability of the accused during the pendency of criminal proceedings and the constitutional right of a citizen to hold a passport and travel abroad.

¶13The need for such a balanced approach is reinforced by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The same principle was earlier recognised in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another,

(1978) 1 SCC 248, wherein it was held that the right to travel abroad forms part of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Any restriction on that right must therefore be fair, reasonable and in accordance with law.

¶14In the above circumstances, this Court passes the following: ORDER

(i) The writ petition is partly allowed;

(ii) The petitioner is directed to reply to a letter/objection dated

27.07.2026 at Annexure-K, undertaking that he would travel only upon receipt of an order from the Court seized in the criminal matter that he is permitted to travel abroad.

(iii) Once such undertaking is furnished, respondent No.2 is directed to process the application of the petitioner and issue a necessary short-validity passport, taking into consideration the above observations, within a period of 15 days of such undertaking being furnished.

Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

SMJ; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5