Supreme Court: Passport for UAPA accused, procedures aren't barriers

In late December 2025, the Supreme Court said that rules exist to secure justice, and not to trip it up.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Augustine George Masih directed the passport authority to re-issue a normal 10-year passport to a UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967) accused, despite pending proceedings, because criminal courts had already given their no objection and kept travel under judicial control.

According to the Supreme Court of India (SCI), pendency is not a rubber stamp for denial. Rather, proportionality matters, and Article 21 is not a decorative caption.

What’s the Context?

The case facts were complex, as the appellant faced a UAPA case in Ranchi and a separate CBI coal block conviction, the sentence for which was stayed on appeal. His passport had expired. Also, the NIA Court and the Delhi High Court allowed its renewal, subject to strict conditions.

Yet the Regional Passport Office refused, leaning on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and a 1993 exemption notification. The Supreme Court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s affirmance and told the executive to stop acting like a supervisory layer over trial courts.

It shows that when judges hold the reins, bureaucracy cannot invent extra fences.

What the SCI Really Said?

The following are what the Supreme Court said in plain words: The Supreme Court said in plain words:

1. Personal liberty includes the freedom to move, travel, and pursue a livelihood and opportunities, subject to law.
2. Restrictions must be necessary, proportionate, and clearly anchored in law.
3. Turning safeguards into rigid barriers upsets the balance between State power and individual dignity.
4. If criminal courts have permitted renewal and retained control over departure, passport denial cannot be mechanical.
5. The right logic is narrow restraint, not indefinite exclusion.

Why This Matters for Day-to-Day Practice?

This holding trims a common overreach. This is because many offices treat pending cases as absolute bars to their work. In fact, the Court clarified that Section 6(2)(f) is not a brick wall when there is court-sanctioned renewal and condition-based control on foreign travel.

In other words, possession of a passport is distinct from permission to travel abroad on a given date. You still seek leave to travel when needed. However, the document itself cannot be strangled by default.

For litigants, lawyers, and service desks offering legal services in India, this reduces routine friction and error-prone refusal notes.

Major Legal Provisions That the Judgment Leans on

The following are the legal provisions on which the judgment leans:

• Article 21’s liberty includes the right to hold a passport and to travel abroad. Any restraint must be fair, just, and reasonable. However, it must be proportionate to a legitimate aim.
• Section 6(2)(f) is read with S.R. 570(E). If courts give permission or no objection, renewal can proceed. The authority cannot demand a specific trip itinerary at the renewal stage.
• The executive cannot behave as a supervisory tribunal over criminal courts. If courts say yes with conditions, the passport office issues the passport and then enforces those conditions through usual verification and endorsements.

Comparative Snapshot

The following are the major issues and their relevant Supreme Court directives:

Linkages to High Court Practice

The Kerala High Court has been saying similar things: renewal should not be denied just because there is no specific order permitting departure. The point of G.S.R. 570(E) is served when courts set guardrails, and the applicant agrees to seek permission before travel.

Also, there are decisions clarifying that a mere FIR or investigation is not “pending proceedings” until a chargesheet and cognisance are obtained. These strands now align with the Supreme Court’s framing on proportionality and control.

Analytical Angles for Counsel

If you represent an accused under UAPA or other serious statutes, the playbook changes a bit. Hence, start focusing on obtaining clear court orders that:

• Permit renewal
• Require re-deposit or intimation
• Mandate prior leave for any departure

Also, build a compliance record. That undercuts the rationale for the Section 6(2)(f) refusal. If the passport authority still stalls, the writ remedy should cite this ruling’s proportionality pivot.

Moreover, flag that the distinction between document possession and actual foreign travel is doctrinally important. It reassures courts that liberty is preserved but supervised.

Caution: Because Caveats Matter

Courts can and do restrain travel explicitly in some cases, and bail or suspension orders may include tighter conditions. In terror financing or risk-of-flight scenarios, stricter controls stand.

Basically, the Supreme Court emphasises a narrowly tailored restraint. If there is a specific judicial travel ban, renewal or usage of the passport can be limited accordingly. So, make sure to maintain the compliance chain.

Quick Practice Checklist

The following is a checklist you must follow:

1. Get a “no objection” for renewal from the trial or appellate court, with re-deposit or intimation conditions.
2. Keep departure permission separate. Also, apply per trip with itinerary and undertakings.
3. If refused, challenge the mechanical reliance on Section 6(2)(f), citing proportionality and Article 21.
4. Document compliance history meticulously. In fact, courts reward steady conduct.

What to Expect?

This ruling is less about passports and more about constitutional metabolism. The procedure should move the case forward, not block the arteries. When courts supervise, the executive must stop hardening temporary disabilities into indefinite exclusions.

Meanwhile, for the UAPA accused, renewal is not amnesty. It is due process with a short leash. Frankly, that is what liberty under law is supposed to feel like. That is what liberty under law is intended to represent.

Share: