The Andhra Pradesh HC in the case of Kadar Valli Shaik v Union of India has observed that “Passport authorities cannot refuse to renew passport citing pendency of criminal case against the applicant if the concerned court grants permission to the person to travel abroad. On production of an order, from the concerned Court, as referred to in the notification, the renewal of the passport shall not be refused only on the ground of Section 6 (2) (f), i.e., mere pendency of the criminal case for trial.”

In the instant matter, the petitioners were charged with crimes such as cheating, cruelty towards women and offences under provisions of the  Dowry Prohibition Act. Due to these pending cases, the passport was not recommended for renewal by the authorities. The petitioners contended that Under section 6 (2)(f) of the Passports Act, renewal cannot be refused since it applies only to the issuance of a passport. 

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, further observed that “In other words, even if the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant for the passport are pending before a criminal court in India, the passport authority shall not refuse to issue a passport if such applicant produces the order from the Court concerned permitting him to depart from India.”