A passport is not just a travel document—it is an affirmation of citizenship and a gateway to personal, professional, and educational opportunities worldwide. However, when a citizen is accused of a crime, especially in sensitive areas such as corruption, the question of whether such a person should be permitted to renew or retain their passport becomes a matter of legal significance. The crux of the issue is: Can the mere registration of an FIR bar the renewal of a passport, even before judicial cognizance is taken or criminal proceedings are instituted in court?
This article critically explores the intersection of criminal procedure, constitutional rights, and administrative discretion under the Passport Act, 1967. It analyses the Kerala High Court’s judgment in Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala (2025), which decisively held that the pendency of an FIR alone is insufficient to invoke a legal bar on passport renewal unless judicial cognizance has been taken.
Legal Framework: Passport Act, 1967
The issuance, suspension, impounding, and renewal of passports in India are governed by the Passport Act, 1967. The relevant sections that bear upon the present issue are:
- Section 5(2)(c): Empowers the passport authority to refuse a passport or travel document for reasons prescribed under Section 6.
- Section 6(2)(f): States that a passport may be refused if “criminal proceedings are pending before a criminal court in India.”
This provision makes it clear that the authority to deny passport services must be exercised only in situations where there are criminal proceedings pending before a court, not merely upon the registration of an FIR or the commencement of an investigation.
Case Overview: Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala (2025)
Facts of the Case
- The petitioner, Raju Kattakayam, aged 60, was facing investigation by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kerala.
- An FIR was registered against him under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Although the investigation was underway, no final report had been submitted and no cognizance had been taken by any court.
- On a mistaken belief that court permission was required for passport renewal, the petitioner approached the Special Judge (Vigilance), Thalassery.
- The court permitted renewal but imposed strict conditions: surrendering of passport, restrictions on foreign travel, a security deposit of ₹20,000, and prior permission for any travel abroad.
- Aggrieved by these conditions, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Issue
- Can mere registration of an FIR be treated as criminal proceedings pending before a court, so as to invoke Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act and thereby deny or restrict passport renewal?
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court delivered a well-reasoned verdict, grounding his analysis in both precedent and statutory interpretation.
1. FIR Does Not Equal Pending Criminal Proceedings
The Court reiterated that a First Information Report (FIR) is simply the initiation of an investigation and does not amount to “criminal proceedings pending before a criminal court”. This phrase is crucial under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act.
2. Cognizance is the Threshold
Drawing upon prior case law, the Court held that criminal proceedings are considered pending only when a court takes cognizance of the alleged offence. Until then, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence, and administrative restrictions such as denial of passport renewal cannot be justified.
Relevant Judicial Precedents
The Kerala High Court extensively cited earlier judgments to support its reasoning:
a) Thadevoose Sebastian v. Regional Passport Officer [2021 (5) KHC 625]
- Held that if the final report has not been filed and the court has not taken cognizance, then no criminal proceeding is “pending.”
- Police verification reports must disclose the actual stage of investigation.
- Passport authorities must not deny renewal based on an unsubstantiated pending FIR.
b) Muhammed v. Union of India [2018 (4) KHC 945]
- Reinforced that FIRs or police investigations do not trigger Sections 6 or 10 of the Passport Act.
- Cognizance by a judicial authority is essential for invoking these provisions.
c) Akhilesh v. State of Kerala [2021 (2) KHC 752]
- Emphasised that the court, where a case is pending, can grant passport permissions after balancing the rights of the individual and the interests of justice.
Court’s Verdict in Raju Kattakayam Case
- The High Court partially allowed the petition.
- It quashed conditions 2 to 5 imposed by the Special Judge in the order permitting passport renewal.
- Held that no court permission is needed for passport renewal when no cognizance has been taken, as the proceedings are not pending in the legal sense.
- Affirmed that the investigating officer is free to seek the petitioner’s presence through lawful means during the investigation.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice A. Badharudeen analysed the legislative purpose and judicial meaning of the term “criminal proceedings pending” and observed the following:
“In the instant case, even though FIR was registered, the investigation so far not completed. If so, following the ratio in Thadevoose Sebastian’s case and the decisions referred in paragraph No.17 of the same, it could not be held that any criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner within the meaning of section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act. Therefore, for renewal of the passport of the petitioner, permission of the court is not necessary.”
Principles Emerged from the Judgment
1. Presumption of Innocence
The legal principle of innocent until proven guilty necessitates that mere allegations—without a court’s cognizance—cannot justify restrictions on a citizen’s liberties, including the right to travel abroad.
2. Administrative Restraint
Passport authorities must exercise discretion judiciously and not act merely upon the existence of an FIR unless it has matured into court proceedings.
3. Judicial Oversight
Even when courts allow passport issuance or renewal, the conditions imposed must be proportionate and based on necessity, not assumption.
Impact and Significance
A. Protection of Fundamental Rights
The judgment ensures that Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) is not violated through arbitrary or premature administrative decisions. It supports the citizens’ right to travel and seek global opportunities.
B. Clarity in Law for Passport Authorities
The judgment offers much-needed clarity to Regional Passport Officers and law enforcement agencies. They are now expected to differentiate between the investigative stage and the trial stage, ensuring that denial of passports is not mechanically tied to FIRs.
C. Judicial Consistency
By aligning with previous decisions, the judgment strengthens a consistent and predictable legal framework—particularly important for those facing unjust or premature restrictions due to pending investigations.
Counterarguments and State Concerns
Critics might argue that allowing accused individuals to renew passports can lead to flight risks, especially in high-value corruption or economic offence cases. However, the Court has addressed this concern:
- It emphasised that investigating agencies can approach the court to prevent the accused from leaving the country.
- Courts are empowered to impose restrictions after due consideration, not before a legal proceeding has formally commenced.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s decision in Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala serves as a strong reminder that legal action must be based on due process, not mere suspicion or administrative overreach.
FIR registration alone does not bar passport renewal unless the case has reached the stage of judicial cognizance. This distinction preserves constitutional values, prevents misuse of administrative power, and ensures that an individual’s liberty is not curtailed without just cause.
In the evolving terrain of criminal justice and administrative discretion, this ruling provides a crucial equilibrium, safeguarding the rights of the accused while allowing the State to uphold its investigative interests through legitimate judicial channels.