Passport authorities cannot be the jury on crime cases. The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that officials issuing passports cannot decide if someone facing criminal proceedings should travel abroad.
Only the trial court has the authority in such matters, the Gujarat HC ruled.
The court was hearing an appeal by Dhaval Sureshbhai Makwana.
He reportedly faced impediments in obtaining a fresh passport. Despite criminal proceedings pending against him, Makwana sought permission to hold a passport valid for 10 years.
Justice Aniruddha P Mayee granted his request, saying that passport offices are limited to issuing or renewing documents. They cannot independently decide who can leave the country.
“This Court is also of the considered opinion that the passport authorities do not have any authority to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad and such authority is only vested in the Trial Court which can impose conditions if an application is made seeking permission to travel abroad,” the court said in its January 5 order.
The ruling underscores a clear separation of responsibilities: passport authorities manage paperwork, the trial court manages travel rights. If Makwana—or anyone in a similar position—intends to travel overseas, they must apply to the relevant trial court, which can impose conditions it deems appropriate. The High Court also directed that any such application be decided quickly, within four weeks.
The judgment relied on existing legal frameworks, including the Passports Act and Rules. It also cited a 2014 Bombay High Court ruling. That ruling clarified that once a competent court allows passport issuance or renewal, authorities cannot impose independent restrictions. The court also referenced a 1993 notification under Section 22, read with Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act. This lays out exemptions and conditions for issuing passports to individuals facing criminal proceedings.
The case dates back to 2022. Makwana was charged under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Following investigation, the police concluded that no offence was made out. The magistrate accepted this report in November 2022. The order was later challenged, and a criminal revision was allowed by the sessions court. A connected petition by a co-accused is still pending before the High Court.
In court, advocate Dharnesh R. Patel argued for the petitioner. He said pending proceedings alone cannot block passport issuance. There was no judicial order barring it. Advocate Pradip D. Bhate, representing the state, countered that trial court permission is mandatory before a passport can be issued. He also noted that Makwana had not yet filed a formal application with the passport authority.
The verdict sends a clear message. Passports are procedural instruments, not instruments of judgment. Decisions on foreign travel, when criminal proceedings are pending, remain with the courts. The ruling maintains a clear balance between administrative authority and judicial oversight.
