“No Court Permission Needed for Passport Renewal Unless Chargesheet Is Filed or Cognizance Taken, Rules Kerala High Court”

Introduction

The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed a pivotal legal principle: mere registration of an FIR or an ongoing investigation does not amount to “pending criminal proceedings” under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967—unless a final report (chargesheet) has been filed and cognizance taken by the court. This clarification comes in light of the recent judgment in Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala & Ors. (OP(CRL.) No. 324/2025), where Justice A. Badharudeen underscored that passport authorities may issue or renew passports freely unless proceedings have formally commenced.

Background of the Case

• The Petitioner: Raju Kattakayam faced charges under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (VACB), prompting an FIR and a vigilance investigation.

• The Lower Court’s Directive: The Vigilance Court granted his passport renewal, but attached stringent conditions: surrender of passport, travel restrictions, and a hefty ₹20,000 security deposit.

• The Legal Challenge: Kattakayam argued that since no final report was submitted and no court had taken cognizance, the case did not legally qualify as a pending “criminal proceeding” under Section 6(2)(f), and thus passport authorities could decide the renewal independently.

Legal Interpretation by the Kerala High Court

Justice Badharudeen referred closely to the precedent set in Thadevoose Sebastian v. Regional Passport Officer [2021 (5) KHC 625], where the court held:

“If the final report has not been filed and no cognizance has been taken by the court, then no criminal proceedings are pending before the court, and the passport authority is free to decide on the grant of a passport without permission from the court.”

Applying this principle, the Court noted:

• An FIR alone, without a completed investigation, does not qualify as pendency of proceedings under Section 6(2)(f).

• Since no chargesheet was filed and no cognizance was taken, Kattakayam had no pending criminal proceedings legally.

• Therefore, passport renewal did not require Court approval, and the conditions imposed by the Vigilance Court were overly restrictive and legally unsustainable.

  
  

Key Takeaways

1. Section 6(2)(f) authorizes refusal of a passport only when criminal proceedings are pending before a Court—which means chargesheet filed and cognizance taken.

2. Mere FIR or ongoing investigation does not fulfill the criteria; until cognizance, the Passport Office retains jurisdiction.

3. This ruling ensures that investigation does not prematurely curtail passport rights, balancing an accused's personal liberty with legal protocol.

4. It also restricts Courts from imposing stringent conditions on passport renewals when no formal proceedings are active.

Broader Legal Context

This judgment reflects the legal trend to uphold the presumption of innocence and avoid punitive restrictions before formal judicial proceedings begin. In Muhammed v. Union of India (2018), the Kerala High Court similarly emphasized that legal proceedings are considered pending only once cognizance is taken.

Other High Courts have also supported this stance:

• The Jammu & Kashmir High Court recently ruled that impounding a passport before chargesheet filing violates fundamental rights.

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court has implied that passport issuance should remain protected in under-trial situations lacking formal charges.

  
  

Practical Implications for Litigants

• Before chargesheet filing: Passport offices can issue/renew passports without Court clearance—even amid FIRs or investigations.

• After chargesheet & cognizance: Passport issuance or renewal requires a Court’s No Objection Certificate (NOC) under Section 6(2)(f).

• Post-cognizance: Courts may impose conditions to prevent absconsion when granting NOC, but renewal within India without Court permission remains permissible under Section 6(2)(f).

  
  

Policy Recommendations & Future Directions

• Passport Authority Guidelines: There’s a pressing need for administrative protocols clarifying when FIRs trigger constraints under Section 6(2)(f). Absent chargesheet, passports should process normally.

• Court Standards for NOC: Drawing from Muhammed, Courts granting NOCs post-cognizance should apply clear parameters (nature of offence, investigation stage, risk of absconding).

• Judicial Monitoring: Courts should routinely review if chargesheet or cognizance has ensued, to lift unnecessary passport restrictions swiftly.

  
  

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s decision is a reaffirmation of the foundational legal principle: an FIR or investigation cannot impair personal liberty unless formal court proceedings commence.

In Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala, it is now unequivocal that passport renewal may proceed without judicial intervention unless a chargesheet has been filed and cognizance taken. This aligns with judicial trends across India, which increasingly safeguard the individual’s right to travel amidst unresolved investigations.

In Summary

Legal Aspect	Key Position
FIR registered	Does not block passport renewal
Chargesheet filed	Blocks passport, unless Court grants NOC
Cognizance taken	Formalizes the case as “pending” under Section 6(2)(f)
Judicial intervention	Unnecessary unless conditions threaten justice or trial continuity

This balance ensures that allegations, before formal court action, cannot curtail fundamental freedoms. The judgment marks a step toward clarity and fairness under the Passport Act, setting a benchmark for legal consistency nationwide.