📜 INTRODUCTION:

In Mohasin Sabbir Ahmed Surati v. Union of India & Anr., R/Special Civil Application No. 13888 of 2025, the Gujarat High Court, through Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee, addressed the pressing and consequential issue arising from the denial of a passport renewal due to a pending criminal case for rash and negligent driving registered under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at Lunawada Town Police Station. The petitioner, an Indian citizen employed in Kuwait, approached the Court after his passport renewal application was kept on hold on the ground of alleged suppression of criminal proceedings. He highlighted that the continuation of employment abroad hinged entirely upon the possession of a valid passport, and denial or delay would subject him to forced deportation, permanent blacklisting, and loss of livelihood. The Court was thus compelled to examine the interplay between individual rights, administrative discretion, and procedural limitations surrounding passport issuance, especially when the alleged offence is neither heinous nor grave, but capable of causing disproportionate hardship due to bureaucratic scrutiny.

⚖️ ARGUMENTS (PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS):

The petitioner argued that he was unaware of the FIR lodged against him since the complainant was himself a Police Head Constable and no formal notice or summons was served upon him. Emphasizing bona fide conduct, he asserted that there was no intention to suppress facts. He further submitted a written explanation to the Embassy of India in Kuwait on 07.09.2025, clarifying his position regarding the alleged offence. The petitioner undertook, on affidavit, to attend trial proceedings as and when required, and invoked Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution, contending that the right to livelihood and dignity includes the right to travel abroad for employment. He insisted that withholding passport renewal was not merely a procedural restraint but an economic punishment without conviction. Furthermore, he highlighted that Section 281 BNS pertains to rash driving—an offence that is bailable, not punishable with imprisonment beyond a moderate statutory limit, and does not involve moral turpitude or national security concerns. Thus, the petitioner claimed that the authorities had mechanically misapplied Rule 5 of the Passport Rules, 1980, which only allows refusal in serious criminal matters, not for misdemeanours such as traffic offences.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent authorities defended the decision to withhold passport renewal, asserting that once any FIR is pending, the passport authorities are duty-bound to verify whether the applicant has concealed material information. They argued that issuance of a passport to an accused may hamper investigation or trial. It was submitted that Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 empowers authorities to refuse issuance of a passport to a person accused of an offence punishable by imprisonment. The respondents relied on the rationale that a pending criminal case establishes prima facie culpability and creates a legitimate ground for scrutiny. They contended that international mobility cannot be permitted as a matter of right when judicial proceedings are pending, and permitting passport renewal would amount to extending judicial leniency which only a court of law can grant, not an administrative body. The respondents confirmed that no mala fide intent existed; rather, their decision was based on procedural mandate and statutory duty. Accordingly, the respondents requested the Court to either dismiss the plea or issue conditions ensuring petitioner’s availability during trial.

🧾 COURT’S JUDGMENT:

Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee, carefully analyzing the competing claims, observed that the underlying controversy was not merely administrative but constitutional in nature, implicating right to livelihood, personal autonomy, and procedural fairness. The Court reiterated that the Passports Act, 1967 is a welfare legislation intended to facilitate global travel and identity authentication, not to serve as a punitive instrument. The Court appreciated the petitioner’s undertaking to appear before the trial court and cooperate with proceedings. It noted that criminal jurisprudence does not presume guilt until conviction, and that pendency of an FIR, particularly for a minor offence under Section 281 BNS—rash and negligent driving—cannot justify depriving an individual of the ability to sustain his livelihood abroad. The Court found the reasoning of the passport authority unsatisfactory, holding that mere pendency of an FIR does not constitute suppression of material fact unless there exists clear proof of concealment. The petitioner had subsequently furnished a detailed written explanation dated 07.09.2025, and no evidence was placed before the Court that the petitioner deliberately intended to mislead authorities.

The Court emphasized proportionality, reasoning that the consequences of denial—forced deportation, loss of job, and permanent foreign travel restrictions—would operate as a punishment far exceeding the statutory punishment prescribed for the offence in question. Jurisprudence consistently holds that administrative measures must align with constitutional values of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness under Article 14. The Court highlighted that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, allowing refusal of passport when criminal proceedings are pending, is not absolute. It must be interpreted contextually and harmoniously to avoid arbitrary deprivation of economic liberty. The Court noted that numerous precedents including Satwant Singh v. Assistant Passport Officer, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and Vivek Batra v. Union of India establish that the right to travel abroad, although subject to regulatory oversight, cannot be curtailed through opaque administrative vetoes.

The Court faulted the authorities for failing to demonstrate how petitioner’s foreign travel would prejudice investigation or trial. The prosecution did not provide any material indicating attempts by the petitioner to evade legal process or any unwillingness to cooperate. The Court also remarked that the complainant being a police head constable does not elevate the gravity of the alleged offence. Rather, withholding passport renewal solely because of an FIR is akin to pre-trial punishment, contrary to the doctrine of presumption of innocence. The Court reiterated that constitutional courts are guardians of liberties, and when procedural power is exercised oppressively, judicial interference becomes mandatory.

Taking into account the petitioner’s foreign employment, the Court observed that economic displacement affects not only an individual but also dependent family members. Denial of passport renewal operates as a civil death in economic terms, placing an individual at the mercy of bureaucratic discretion. The Court concluded that unless compelling reasons exist, administrative decisions must not thwart gainful employment abroad. It is the function of courts to strike a balance—ensure participation of accused in legal proceedings, and simultaneously safeguard constitutional freedoms from administrative overreach.

In view of the peculiar facts, nature of offence, petitioner’s bona fide undertaking, and absence of aggravating circumstances, the Court directed respondent no. 2 to process Passport Application Reference No. 25-2003972624 within 4 weeks in accordance with law. The petition was accordingly disposed, marking yet another articulation of India’s constitutional commitment to livelihood security, access to justice, and due process.