LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India & Anr.

Not available · 2025 INSC 1476Decided 19 Dec 2025
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

The appellant, an accused in an NIA (National Investigation Agency) case and a convict (on appeal) in a separate CBI coal-block corruption case, had his passport expire in 2023. Both the NIA Special Court in Ranchi and the Delhi High Court (hearing his CBI appeal) had granted "no objection" for renewal of his passport for ten years, while keeping strict conditions that he could not leave India without their prior permission. Despite these court orders, the Passport Office in Kolkata refused to renew his passport for the standard ten-year term, citing Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, which bars issuing passports to persons facing pending criminal proceedings. The Calcutta High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench both upheld this refusal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 6(2)(f)'s bar is not absolute. It is expressly "subject to other provisions" of the Act, including the exemption power under Section 22, which the government had used to issue a 1993 notification (GSR 570(E)) allowing passport issuance to persons facing criminal cases if the concerned criminal court permits it. Since both the NIA Court and the Delhi High Court had, with full knowledge of the pending cases, consciously permitted renewal (while retaining control over actual foreign travel through prior-permission conditions), the appellant fell within the exempted category and the statutory bar was lifted. The Court emphasized that holding a passport and actually travelling abroad are distinct: the criminal courts remain fully in control of the latter. It set aside the High Court's rulings and directed the passport authority to issue a standard ten-year passport within four weeks, subject to the existing court-imposed travel restrictions.

Lesson Learnt

The right to hold a passport is part of the constitutional right to personal liberty, and a passport authority cannot indefinitely deny renewal merely because criminal proceedings are pending. If the concerned criminal court has already granted permission for renewal while retaining control over actual foreign travel, that judicial safeguard satisfies the law's purpose and the passport must be issued.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case