Introduction:
In a significant judgment reaffirming the expansive scope of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Rajasthan High Court directed the release of a Thai national’s passport despite pending criminal proceedings against her in a gold-smuggling case. The Court held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 extends equally to foreign nationals residing within India and that denial of passport facilities without lawful justification would amount to infringement of constitutional protections.
The decision was delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in Saisuda Chuennok v. Union of India, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 208. The Court was hearing a petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner’s application seeking release of her passport for renewal purposes while criminal proceedings under the Customs Act remained pending against her.
The petitioner, a citizen of Thailand, had been arraigned as a co-accused in a gold-smuggling case registered under the provisions of the Central Excise and Customs Act, 1962. During the course of investigation, her passport had been seized by the authorities after her arrest. Subsequently, while the criminal proceedings continued, the passport expired in January 2025.
After securing bail in the criminal case, the petitioner approached the competent court seeking release of the passport so that she could renew it through the appropriate authorities. However, her request was rejected on the ground that criminal proceedings were still pending against her and that there existed a serious apprehension that she might abscond to her home country if the passport was released.
The matter acquired constitutional significance because it raised questions concerning the extent to which foreign nationals are entitled to invoke the protections guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The case also involved balancing the State’s concerns regarding flight risk and administration of criminal justice against the individual’s right to dignity, liberty, and freedom of movement.
The prosecution strongly opposed the petitioner’s request and described her as a habitual offender allegedly involved in repeated gold-smuggling activities. It was contended that she had previously travelled to India on multiple occasions for similar unlawful activities and had even misused the concession of bail by remaining absent from proceedings for a considerable period.
Despite these allegations, the High Court ultimately held that pendency of a criminal case by itself cannot operate as an automatic bar against grant or renewal of passport facilities. The Court further observed that modern constitutional jurisprudence recognises the right to travel abroad as an intrinsic component of personal liberty protected under Article 21.
Importantly, the Court also noted that sufficient statutory safeguards already existed under the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025, empowering immigration authorities to regulate or restrict departure of foreign nationals from India wherever necessary. Consequently, denial of passport renewal solely on speculative apprehensions could not be sustained in law.
The ruling therefore stands as an important reaffirmation that constitutional guarantees relating to dignity and liberty are not confined only to Indian citizens but extend equally to all human beings within the territory of India, including foreign nationals facing criminal prosecution.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner challenged the order rejecting her application for release of the passport primarily on constitutional grounds. It was argued that the refusal to permit renewal of the passport violated her fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that a passport is not merely an identity document but an indispensable legal instrument that enables an individual to travel across international borders and lawfully reside in a foreign country. Without a valid passport, the petitioner would effectively become stranded and incapable of exercising her right to movement and lawful international travel.
The petitioner further argued that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot automatically justify denial of passport facilities. According to her, such denial must be supported by specific legal authority and proportionate justification. It was submitted that refusal to release the passport solely on the basis of pending proceedings amounted to arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty.
The defence also emphasised that the petitioner had already been granted bail in the criminal case, which itself indicated that the courts did not consider her continued detention necessary. Therefore, once liberty had been restored through grant of bail, denial of passport renewal without compelling reasons would amount to imposing an additional and unjustified restriction on her fundamental rights.
The petitioner argued that the apprehension regarding possible absconding was speculative and insufficient to justify continued deprivation of passport facilities. It was contended that appropriate statutory mechanisms already existed to regulate movement of foreign nationals accused in criminal cases and that the State could invoke such mechanisms wherever necessary.
Another important submission made on behalf of the petitioner was that constitutional protections under Article 21 are available not only to Indian citizens but to all persons within India, including foreigners. The petitioner therefore asserted that she was equally entitled to dignity, liberty, and fair treatment under constitutional law.
The Union of India and the State authorities strongly opposed the petition and justified the rejection of the passport release application.
The prosecution argued that the petitioner was not an ordinary accused but a habitual offender allegedly involved in repeated acts of gold smuggling. According to the State, the petitioner herself had admitted that she had travelled to India on four previous occasions for the purpose of smuggling gold.
The respondents further submitted that the petitioner had already demonstrated conduct indicating likelihood of absconding. It was pointed out that after being granted bail earlier, she failed to appear before the court, resulting in forfeiture of her bail bonds. The State asserted that she thereafter remained absconding until May 2026.
On the basis of this past conduct, the prosecution contended that releasing the passport would create a serious risk of the petitioner fleeing India and evading the judicial process permanently.
The State also argued that offences relating to gold smuggling involve organised economic crime affecting national financial interests and customs administration. Therefore, according to the prosecution, courts should adopt a cautious approach while considering requests that may facilitate departure of accused persons from the country.
Another significant argument advanced by the respondents was that the petitioner’s status as a foreign national made the apprehension of absconding even more serious. Once permitted to leave India, securing her return for continuation of trial proceedings could become practically difficult.
The State therefore maintained that the lower court was justified in refusing release of the passport in order to secure the petitioner’s presence during trial.
In response, the petitioner reiterated that passport renewal and permission to depart India are distinct legal issues governed by separate statutory frameworks. While renewal of passport concerns preservation of legal identity and travel documentation, actual departure from India remains subject to immigration control mechanisms.
The competing submissions thus required the High Court to examine whether denial of passport renewal could be constitutionally sustained merely on the basis of pending criminal proceedings and apprehensions regarding absconding.
Court’s Judgment:
The Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition and directed release of the petitioner’s passport for the purpose of renewal, holding that denial of such permission would violate the protections guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand began the analysis by reaffirming the broad and inclusive scope of Article 21. The Court categorically observed that the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty extends not only to Indian citizens but to all persons, including foreign nationals residing within India.
The Court observed:
“The protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right of life and personal liberty, extends to all persons and this right is not confined to the Indian Citizens alone and it is available to the Foreign Nationals as well. The Right to Life with Dignity guaranteed under Article 21 is available to all human beings, including foreigners.”
The judgment recognised that the right to travel abroad constitutes an integral facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21. Justice Dhand observed that a passport is the primary legal document enabling an individual to cross international boundaries and seek lawful entry into foreign territories.
The Court further explained that absence of a valid passport effectively renders a person incapable of lawful international movement and may place the individual in a position of legal uncertainty even in relation to his or her own country.
The Court stated:
“Consequently, in the absence of a valid passport, a citizen is rendered as an alien in the eyes of a foreign State, having no lawful authority to enter or remain within its territory. Therefore, any arbitrary or unlawful denial of an individual’s passport amounts to deprivation of the citizen’s fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Justice Dhand then examined whether pendency of criminal proceedings by itself could justify denial of passport renewal. The Court held that criminal prosecution alone cannot operate as an automatic bar against grant or renewal of passport facilities unless supported by specific statutory prohibition or compelling legal necessity.
Importantly, the Court distinguished between renewal of a passport and actual permission to depart from India. While the former concerns preservation of legal identity and personal liberty, the latter remains subject to immigration and border control laws.
Addressing the State’s apprehension that the petitioner may abscond to Thailand, the Court referred extensively to Clause 5 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025.
The Court noted that the statutory framework already vests Immigration Officers with discretionary authority to permit or deny departure of foreign nationals from India. Therefore, even if the petitioner were granted a renewed passport, her departure from India would still remain subject to scrutiny and approval by immigration authorities.
Justice Dhand observed that the existence of these statutory safeguards adequately addressed the concerns raised by the prosecution regarding flight risk.
The Court therefore concluded that indefinite withholding of the passport was neither necessary nor constitutionally proportionate.
Another important aspect of the judgment lies in its emphasis on dignity and fairness even in relation to accused persons facing serious allegations. Although the State characterised the petitioner as a habitual gold smuggler and pointed to previous instances of absconding, the Court maintained that constitutional rights cannot be denied merely on the basis of allegations.
The ruling reflects the principle that criminal accusations do not extinguish fundamental rights and that restrictions upon liberty must always satisfy constitutional standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the lower court to release the petitioner’s passport for renewal purposes.
The Court also directed the concerned State authorities to communicate the order to the Immigration Officer so that appropriate measures under the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025 could be taken wherever necessary.
The judgment is significant because it reinforces the constitutional principle that Article 21 protections apply universally to all human beings within India’s jurisdiction, irrespective of nationality.
It also highlights the judiciary’s consistent approach that liberty-related rights, including the right to travel abroad, cannot be curtailed arbitrarily merely because criminal proceedings are pending.
At a broader level, the decision demonstrates judicial commitment to balancing individual liberty with legitimate concerns of law enforcement through proportionate statutory safeguards rather than blanket deprivation of rights.