The Andhra Pradesh High Court has come to the aid of a cardiologist, directing passport authorities to renew his passport and holding that the mere pendency of criminal cases cannot be used as an automatic ground to deny the fundamental right to travel abroad.

The ruling came as the heart specialist faced the prospect of missing an international medical conference in the United States due to the passport renewal dispute.

Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela was hearing a writ petition challenging the refusal of the Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada, to renew his passport without obtaining prior permission from the criminal court despite interim protections granted in the pending cases.

“As per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act, 1967, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant in India. A bare reading of the Passport Act, 1967 reveals that there is no absolute bar for Renewal of passport,” the court said on May 28.

“As per Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passport Act, 1967 when the passport authority refuses to grant passport, the Court while exercising its discretion has to look at the facts and circumstances of each case. Mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a reason to refuse to grant passport,” it added, reiterating that authorities must balance statutory provisions with the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the right to travel abroad.

The cardiologist had approached the high court after the Regional Passport Office in Vijayawada declined to process his passport renewal application without court permission.

His existing passport, issued on June 22, 2016, is due to expire on June 21. He applied for renewal on April 21 this year.

According to court records, passport authorities flagged pending criminal proceedings against the doctor during police verification and alleged that he had failed to disclose them in his online application.

In response, the doctor submitted an explanation stating that the omission was inadvertent and provided details of the pending cases along with supporting court orders.

However, on May 14, the regional passport officer informed him that he would have to obtain permission to travel abroad from the concerned criminal court in view of a 1993 Central government notification before his passport could be renewed.

Before the high court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the passport refusal was unjustified, particularly because courts had already granted protection in the pending criminal matters.

The petition stated that one case arose out of a 2020 registration at Governorpet Police Station, Vijayawada, in which the court had granted interim protection and the Supreme Court had also protected his liberty.

Another related matter of 2024 pending before the I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, had been stayed by the high court in November 2024.

The doctor also highlighted the professional consequences of the passport dispute. The court was informed that he had received an invitation to attend an annual scientific meeting scheduled to be held in the United States in July 2026.

Failure to renew the passport, the petition said, would adversely affect his professional obligations, international academic participation and medical engagements.

The ruling is expected to have implications beyond this case. It reinforces a growing body of judicial decisions holding that pending criminal proceedings do not automatically strip citizens of their right to obtain or renew passports.

By reiterating that passport authorities cannot mechanically deny renewal solely because a criminal case is pending, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has underlined the principle that fundamental rights must be protected unless restricted through a fair, reasonable, and legally sustainable process.