Featured Snippet Answer (50 words)

Yes. Indian courts can impose travel restrictions as bail conditions, but only the Passport Authority — not a trial court — can impound or seize a passport, per Suresh Nanda v. CBI (2008) and the 2026 Madras High Court ruling. Restrictions can be challenged through modification applications, High Court writ petitions, or Supreme Court appeals.

Quick Answer Box

Short answer: A trial court cannot impound your passport — only the Regional Passport Officer can, under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. A trial court can restrict your travel as a bail condition (e.g., "do not leave India without permission"), but even that condition must be reasonable and proportionate, and can be challenged before the same court, the Sessions Court, or the High Court if it is excessive, indefinite, or imposed without justification. The Supreme Court's December 2025 ruling in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India further confirmed that pending criminal cases cannot indefinitely block passport renewal once the trial court has given a no-objection.

Key Takeaways

• A criminal court has no power to physically impound or confiscate your passport — that power belongs exclusively to the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967.
• Courts can still impose travel-restriction bail conditions (surrender of passport to the court registry, prior permission before foreign travel) — but the Madras, Bombay, and Karnataka High Courts have all struck down conditions that amount to actual seizure/custody of the document.
• The Supreme Court's December 2025 judgment in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal held that pendency of a criminal case is not an absolute bar to passport renewal once the trial court has permitted it.
• The right to travel abroad is part of "personal liberty" under Article 21 of the Constitution (Satwant Singh Sawhney, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India).
• You can challenge an unreasonable passport restriction through a bail-modification application, a writ petition before the High Court, or — in rare urgent cases — a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
• Acting early matters: passports left unrenewed beyond their validity create fresh administrative complications that are harder to undo than a timely challenge.

Can Passport Restrictions Be Challenged During Trial?

If you are an accused person facing a pending criminal case in India and your passport has been seized, your renewal application has been refused, or a court has ordered you to surrender your passport as a bail condition, you are not without options. Indian law draws a sharp and increasingly well-litigated line between what a criminal court is allowed to do and what only the passport authorities can do — and courts have shown a clear, recent willingness to correct overreach on both sides.

This guide lays out exactly what the law permits, what recent Supreme Court and High Court rulings say, and the precise steps you should take if your travel rights are being restricted during an ongoing trial.

Table of Contents

1. What the Law Says
2. Relevant Legal Provisions
3. Latest Legal Position (2025–2026)
4. Supreme Court Judgments
5. High Court Judgments
6. Court Procedure for Challenging a Restriction
7. Jurisdiction — Which Court Do You Approach
8. Documents Required
9. Evidence Required
10. Timeline
11. Costs Involved
12. Common Defences Used by Passport Authorities
13. Common Mistakes Applicants Make
14. Risks and Limitations
15. Practical Legal Advice
16. Litigation Strategy
17. Alternative Remedies
18. Step-by-Step Action Plan
19. Frequently Asked Questions

<a name="what-the-law-says"></a>

1. What the Law Says

Two separate legal questions get conflated in most discussions of this topic, and untangling them is the key to understanding your rights.

Question one: Can a criminal court physically take possession of your passport? No. The Supreme Court settled this in Suresh Nanda v. CBI (2008) 3 SCC 674, holding in unambiguous terms that the power to impound a document under Section 104 of the (now-repealed) Code of Criminal Procedure does not extend to a passport, because the Passports Act, 1967 is a special law that governs passports specifically and overrides the general procedural power of courts. The same logic carries forward under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced Section 104 CrPC. Impounding a passport is a power reserved exclusively for the Passport Authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act.

Question two: Can a criminal court restrict your ability to travel as a bail condition? Yes — but within limits. Courts routinely impose conditions like "the accused shall not leave India without the permission of the court," and these are generally upheld as reasonable safeguards to secure the accused's presence at trial. What courts cannot do is dress up an outright seizure of the passport as a "bail condition." Several 2024–2026 High Court rulings have drawn this distinction precisely, setting aside conditions that required the accused to physically surrender the passport to the court or police while leaving travel-permission conditions intact.

Question three: Can pending criminal proceedings block passport renewal? Not automatically. The Supreme Court's December 2025 ruling in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India clarified that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act — which deals with passport issuance where criminal proceedings are pending — is not a perpetual or absolute bar. Where the concerned criminal court has already given a no-objection or permitted renewal (even while retaining control over actual foreign travel), the Passport Authority cannot independently override that judicial assessment and refuse renewal.

What should you do with this understanding? Identify which of the three scenarios applies to you — actual seizure, a bail-condition travel restriction, or a renewal refusal — because the remedy, the forum, and the supporting case law differ for each. Misidentifying your situation is the single biggest reason applicants approach the wrong court or cite the wrong precedent.

2. Relevant Legal Provisions

Practical guidance: When drafting any application — whether before the trial court or in a writ petition — cite the specific sub-section relevant to your scenario. A generic reference to "the Passports Act" weakens your submission; pinpoint citation of Section 10(3) (for impounding disputes) or Section 6(2)(f) read with Section 22 (for renewal disputes) signals to the court that your counsel has done the groundwork, and tends to speed up how seriously interim relief is considered.

3. Relevant Sections of Law — A Closer Look

Section 10(3) grounds for impounding (only the Passport Authority can invoke these):

• The holder is in wrongful possession of the passport
• The passport was obtained by suppression of material information or misrepresentation
• Impounding is necessary in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, or security of India, or India's friendly relations with any foreign country, or in the interest of the general public
• The holder has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude and sentenced to imprisonment of not less than two years
• Proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the holder are pending before a criminal court in India
• A court has issued a warrant or summons for the holder's appearance, or has issued an order prohibiting departure from India

Notice the fifth ground — pending criminal proceedings is itself a valid ground for the Passport Authority to impound a passport. This is precisely why the Mahesh Kumar Agarwal ruling matters so much: it doesn't erase this ground, but it clarifies that the Authority must give due weight to the trial court's own assessment rather than treating Section 6(2)(f)/10(3)(e) as a rigid, automatic bar irrespective of what the criminal court has already permitted.

4. Latest Legal Position (2025–2026)

The legal landscape on this issue shifted meaningfully in the last twelve months, and any article or advice predating December 2025 is now incomplete.

On 19 December 2025, the Supreme Court decided Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr. (2025 INSC 1476), a case where a businessman facing both an NIA case in Jharkhand and a separate CBI coal-block conviction (sentence suspended on appeal) had his passport renewal refused by the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata, despite both criminal courts having granted no-objection for renewal subject to travel-permission safeguards. The Supreme Court ruled that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot become a permanent roadblock to renewing a citizen's passport, emphasizing that liberty under Article 21 must be protected. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Augustine George Masih went further, observing that liberty in India's constitutional scheme is not a gift of the State but its first obligation.

Separately, on the bail-conditions front, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in Raja v. The Inspector of Police (CRL OP(MD) No. 6022 of 2026), set aside a sessions court's bail condition requiring an accused to surrender his passport to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. Justice P. Dhanabal held that under Section 109 of the BNSS (Section 104 of the CrPC), the court had power to impound documents generally, but not a passport — that power rests solely with the passport authorities under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The Court reasoned that the Passports Act is a special law that prevails over general laws like the CrPC or BNSS.

This 2026 Madras ruling did not stand alone — it followed a near-identical 2024 ruling from the Bombay High Court, where Justice Bharat Deshpande held that a trial court has no power to direct a person to first apply for a passport, obtain it, and then surrender it as a bail condition, since this exceeded the scope of conditions normally required for bail. The Karnataka High Court reached the same conclusion in 2022, with Justice M. Nagaprasanna observing that the power to impound a document under Section 104 of the CrPC could not be stretched to cover a passport, since the Passports Act is a special enactment that prevails over the general provisions of the CrPC.

What this means for you today: if you are facing either a renewal refusal or a court-ordered passport surrender, you are no longer arguing on a blank slate — you are arguing with a converging, multi-jurisdiction line of authority squarely in your favour, capped by a December 2025 Supreme Court ruling.

5. Supreme Court Judgments
6. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer (1967) The foundational case establishing that the right to travel abroad falls within "personal liberty" under Article 21, and that the State cannot arbitrarily deny a passport without legal authority.
7. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 Expanded Article 21 to require that any procedure restricting personal liberty (including impounding a passport) must be fair, just, and reasonable — not merely prescribed by some law, but a good law that survives constitutional scrutiny. This case remains the constitutional backbone for every subsequent passport-restriction challenge.
8. Suresh Nanda v. CBI, (2008) 3 SCC 674 The Supreme Court held that even a court cannot impound a passport — Section 104 of the CrPC only allows a court to impound a document or thing other than a passport, because the Passports Act deals specifically with the subject of impounding passports and prevails over the general provision. The Court further clarified that under Section 10A of the Act, retention by the Central Government can only be for four weeks, after which retention requires a formal impounding order from the Passport Authority under Section 10(3). This remains the single most important precedent to cite when challenging any court-ordered seizure of a passport.
9. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Anr., 2025 INSC 1476 The most recent and directly applicable authority. The Court held that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act — which bars issuance of a passport when criminal proceedings are pending — is not an absolute and perpetual prohibition, addressing the interplay between the Passports Act, the exemption notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, and the right to personal liberty under Article 21. The Court identified that the lower courts had erred in treating Section 6(2)(f) as an absolute bar so long as any criminal proceeding is pending, without giving effect to the exemption framework under Section 22 and GSR 570(E). The Bench held that the Passport Authority cannot act as a "supervisory" body over criminal courts and must issue passports when the concerned courts have granted a no-objection, even if specific travel dates are not yet determined.

Practical guidance: If your renewal has been refused, your application or writ petition should cite Mahesh Kumar Agarwal directly, and request that the Passport Authority be directed to give effect to any no-objection already granted by your trial court, rather than independently re-assessing the merits of the pending case.

6. High Court Judgments

Raja v. The Inspector of Police, Madras HC (Madurai Bench), CRL OP(MD) No. 6022 of 2026 The petitioner had been granted bail with a condition to surrender his passport to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court; he challenged this as violative of Article 21, contending that only the Passports Act authority — not the Sessions Court — had power to impound a passport. The Government Advocate had argued the condition was necessary given the gravity of the offence to secure the petitioner's presence, but the Court relied on the Suresh Nanda principle and held that the Passports Act is a special law prevailing over the general CrPC/BNSS. The High Court set aside the passport-surrender condition while keeping intact the conditions restricting departure from India without permission and the weekly police-station reporting requirement.

Anonymous, Bombay HC (2024) The trial court had imposed the unusual condition of directing the accused to first apply for a passport, obtain it, and then surrender it — a condition that was never modified even on a subsequent application. The Bombay High Court quashed this, finding it exceeded the scope of what is "normally required" for bail.

Anonymous, Karnataka HC The Court ruled that deposit of a passport before the court, or its retention by police "till conclusion of trial," is without authority of law and effectively amounts to an unauthorized impounding.

Ramkumar v. Sub Inspector of Police, Madras HC (Madurai Bench), 2022 An earlier instance of the same principle, where the High Court reiterated that no court has the power to impound a passport — that discretion rests solely with the passport authorities — and directed the Magistrate to pass alternative orders instead of compelling passport surrender until conclusion of trial.

Practical guidance: These rulings form a consistent High Court trend across Karnataka, Bombay, and Madras spanning 2022–2026. If your jurisdiction's High Court has not yet ruled on this exact point, these out-of-state precedents carry strong persuasive value and should be cited together to demonstrate a settled judicial consensus, not an isolated outlier ruling.

7. Court Procedure for Challenging a Restriction

The procedure differs depending on which of the three scenarios you face.

1. If a court has ordered you to surrender your passport as a bail condition:

1. File a bail-modification application before the same court that imposed the condition (Sessions Court or Magistrate, as applicable), citing Suresh Nanda and the relevant High Court rulings.
2. If refused or ignored, move a revision petition or writ petition (Article 226/227) before the jurisdictional High Court.

1. If the Passport Authority has refused renewal citing pending proceedings:

1. First obtain a clear, written no-objection from the concerned criminal court(s) permitting renewal, ideally specifying that the court retains control over actual foreign travel through a permission mechanism.
2. Submit this no-objection to the Regional Passport Office along with a formal representation.
3. If refused despite the no-objection, file a writ petition under Article 226 before the jurisdictional High Court, citing Mahesh Kumar Agarwal.

1. If your passport has been physically seized by police or retained beyond the law's permitted window:

1. Verify whether a formal Section 10(3) impounding order has actually been passed by the Passport Authority — under Section 10A, the Central Government/police can only retain a passport for four weeks without such an order.
2. If no such order exists, or the retention exceeds four weeks, file an immediate writ petition seeking release, citing Suresh Nanda.

What should you do next? Do not approach the High Court first in scenario A or C without first attempting modification before the trial court or confirming the absence of a formal order — courts generally expect this preliminary step, and skipping it can lead to your writ petition being dismissed as premature.

8. Jurisdiction — Which Court Do You Approach

A writ petition challenging a Passport Authority's action is filed in the High Court that has territorial jurisdiction over either the Regional Passport Office that passed the order, or where the cause of action substantially arose.

9. Documents Required

• Certified copy of the bail order containing the disputed condition
• Certified copy of the no-objection / permission order from the criminal court (for renewal cases)
• Copy of the passport application and any rejection letter or deficiency memo from the Passport Authority
• Copy of the FIR / chargesheet relevant to the pending case(s)
• Proof of passport seizure (panchnama, seizure memo, or acknowledgment) if applicable
• Vakalatnama / authorization for your advocate
• Affidavit detailing the chronology of events

Practical guidance: Passport Authorities frequently cite "incomplete documentation" as an informal reason for delay even where the legal position favours you. Submit a complete, indexed documentation set with your very first representation — this alone resolves a meaningful share of renewal disputes without requiring litigation at all.

10. Evidence Required

In a writ petition or bail-modification application, the "evidence" is largely documentary rather than testimonial:

• The court order itself (showing the precise wording of the restriction)
• Proof that the restriction has caused or will cause concrete prejudice (e.g., an employment opportunity abroad, a medical necessity, a family emergency)
• Proof of compliance with all other bail conditions, to demonstrate you are not a flight risk
• Any prior travel history showing past compliance with court-permitted travel

Courts are considerably more receptive to modification requests from an accused who has a clean compliance record. If you have previously travelled abroad under court permission and returned as required, document this carefully — it is often the single most persuasive piece of evidence in a modification application.

11. Timeline

• Bail-modification application before trial court: Typically heard within 2–4 weeks, depending on court backlog.
• Writ petition before High Court (urgent/interim relief): Interim orders can sometimes be obtained within days to a few weeks if genuine urgency (medical emergency, employment deadline) is demonstrated; final disposal can take several months.
• Passport renewal after favourable court order: Once the Passport Authority is furnished with a clear court NOC, renewal is typically processed within 30–45 working days under standard Passport Seva timelines, though disputed cases can take longer if internal verification is triggered.
• Supreme Court SLP: Reserved for cases involving a genuine point of law or where High Court relief has failed; realistically a matter of several months from filing to final hearing, though interim relief can sometimes be obtained faster.

12. Costs Involved

• Court fees for a bail-modification application are nominal (typically a few hundred rupees).
• Writ petition court fees vary by state but are generally modest (often under ₹1,000–2,000 depending on the High Court).
• The primary cost is professional fees for engaging a criminal lawyer experienced in passport-related litigation, which vary significantly based on the complexity of the underlying criminal case and the forum (trial court vs. High Court vs. Supreme Court).
• Passport renewal fees themselves follow the standard Passport Seva fee schedule and are unaffected by the litigation.

13. Common Defences Used by Passport Authorities and Prosecution

• That the seriousness of the pending offence justifies stricter travel control (often raised in UAPA, economic offence, or NIA matters).
• That the accused poses a genuine flight risk based on case-specific facts (foreign assets, prior absconding, dual citizenship considerations).
• That Section 6(2)(f) independently empowers refusal regardless of any criminal court's view (an argument now significantly weakened by Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, but still raised at the administrative level before litigation).
• That a bail condition restricting passport surrender is a standard, court-sanctioned safeguard rather than an unauthorized impounding (the very distinction Madras, Bombay, and Karnataka High Courts have rejected when the condition amounts to actual seizure).

Practical guidance: Anticipate these arguments in your own pleadings rather than waiting to respond to them — pre-emptively address flight-risk concerns by proposing reasonable safeguards (surrender of passport copy, prior intimation of travel dates, return-ticket proof) so the court sees you are not resisting all oversight, only the disproportionate and legally unauthorized form of it.

14. Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. Letting the passport expire before initiating any legal step. An expired passport adds an additional layer of administrative complication on top of the underlying legal dispute.
2. Approaching the High Court directly without first seeking modification from the trial court. This can result in dismissal for not exhausting the appropriate first remedy.
3. Citing general "fundamental rights" arguments without anchoring them to the specific statutory provisions and case law discussed above. Courts respond far better to precise, provision-by-provision arguments.
4. Failing to obtain a clear, unambiguous no-objection order from the criminal court — vague or conditional language in the trial court's order is one of the most common reasons Passport Authorities continue to resist renewal even after Mahesh Kumar Agarwal.
5. Ignoring the four-week limit under Section 10A when a passport has been informally retained by police — this is a strict, time-bound right that is easy to overlook.
6. Assuming a single favourable High Court ruling from another state automatically binds your local Passport Authority — persuasive value is high, but you may still need to litigate locally if the Authority does not voluntarily fall in line.

15. Risks and Limitations

Honesty about the limits of this remedy matters as much as knowing your rights. Courts retain genuine discretion to impose reasonable travel-restriction bail conditions, and this remedy does not guarantee unrestricted travel — it guarantees that any restriction must be lawful, proportionate, and properly channelled through the Passport Authority where actual impounding is involved.

In serious offences — particularly under UAPA, PMLA, or where flight risk is independently substantiated — courts have been considerably more cautious, and the Mahesh Kumar Agarwal ruling itself involved an accused who retained strict court-supervised travel conditions even after renewal was permitted. This is not a ruling that frees an accused from all oversight; it is a ruling that the oversight must take a legally correct form.

There is also a practical risk: pursuing High Court litigation against the Passport Authority while a criminal trial is simultaneously ongoing can, in some instances, be perceived unfavourably if not framed carefully — your counsel should ensure the writ petition is framed strictly around the administrative/statutory question, not as a collateral attack on the merits of the pending criminal case.

16. Practical Legal Advice

Should I hire a lawyer for this? Yes. While the legal position is now well-settled in your favour on the core impounding question, translating that legal position into an actual favourable order requires correctly drafted pleadings, accurate citation, and an understanding of which forum to approach first. A criminal lawyer with passport-litigation experience can typically resolve straightforward renewal disputes through a well-documented representation alone, without needing to litigate at all.

Can I handle this myself? For a simple bail-modification application before a Magistrate, a self-represented or lightly-assisted approach is feasible if you have the documentation in order. For a High Court writ petition, professional representation is strongly advisable given the procedural formality involved.

When should I approach a court? As soon as a passport-related restriction is imposed or a renewal application is refused — do not wait for the underlying criminal trial to conclude, since both issues (the criminal case and the passport question) can and should proceed on separate tracks.

What documents should I gather immediately? Start with the items listed in Section 9 above — particularly the exact wording of any bail order or rejection letter, since the specific language used often determines which precedent applies most directly to your situation.

17. Litigation Strategy

A well-built challenge typically follows this sequence:

1. Build the documentary record first. Before filing anything, assemble the complete chronology — bail order, any prior representations to the Passport Authority, rejection communications, and proof of compliance with existing conditions.
2. Attempt the lowest-cost remedy first. A modification application before the trial court, or a formal representation to the Regional Passport Office citing Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, resolves a significant proportion of these disputes without requiring writ litigation.
3. Frame the writ petition narrowly. When escalation to the High Court becomes necessary, frame the relief sought strictly in terms of the statutory and constitutional questions — the Passport Authority's failure to give effect to a court NOC, or the trial court's lack of jurisdiction to impound — rather than reopening the merits of the criminal case itself.
4. Propose safeguards proactively. Offering reasonable alternatives (intimation of travel dates, deposit of a notarized photocopy instead of the original, return-ticket proof) substantially increases the likelihood of a favourable order, since it demonstrates good faith rather than an attempt to evade all oversight.
5. Preserve the criminal case track separately. Ensure your passport litigation strategy does not inadvertently create arguments that could be used against you in the underlying criminal matter — coordinate closely between your criminal defence counsel and whoever handles the writ petition, ideally the same counsel or a closely coordinated team.

18. Alternative Remedies

• Representation to the Ministry of External Affairs / Regional Passport Office before resorting to litigation — often faster and cheaper if your documentation is strong.
• Application before the trial court for a specific, time-bound travel permission for a known upcoming trip, rather than seeking a general lifting of restrictions — courts are often more receptive to a narrowly tailored request.
• RTI application to ascertain the exact status and stated reasons for a stalled renewal application, which can clarify whether the issue is genuinely legal or merely administrative delay.
• Approaching the appellate/revisional criminal court (where the conviction itself is under appeal, as in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal) to secure a clear NOC that supersedes any ambiguity from the trial court's original order.

19. Step-by-Step Action Plan

1. Identify your exact scenario — seizure, bail-condition restriction, or renewal refusal — since the remedy differs for each.
2. Collect the documentary record: court orders, rejection letters, FIR/chargesheet, prior representations.
3. Check the precise wording of any restriction — actual surrender/impounding, or merely a travel-permission condition? This determines your strongest argument.
4. If renewal-related: secure a clear NOC from the criminal court(s) and submit it to the Passport Authority, citing Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2025 INSC 1476).
5. If bail-condition related: file a modification application before the trial court citing Suresh Nanda v. CBI and the Madras/Bombay/Karnataka High Court rulings.
6. If retained beyond four weeks without a formal Section 10(3) order: prepare to move the High Court urgently, citing the Section 10A limit.
7. Engage a lawyer experienced in passport and criminal litigation to draft pleadings with precise citations.
8. If administrative remedies fail, escalate to the High Court through a properly framed writ petition.
9. Maintain compliance with all other bail conditions throughout — this strengthens your credibility before every forum.
10. Track the timeline closely so your passport does not lapse during the dispute.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a trial court legally hold or keep my passport during a criminal case? No. Per Suresh Nanda v. CBI (2008), only the Passport Authority can impound a passport under Section 10(3). Courts cannot use their general document-impounding power (Section 109 BNSS) to retain one.
2. Can a judge still stop me from travelling abroad even if they can't keep my passport? Yes. A bail condition like "do not leave India without permission" is a reasonable safeguard, distinct from seizing the document, and is generally upheld.
3. Is the Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Supreme Court judgment binding nationwide? Yes. Delivered 19 December 2025 (2025 INSC 1476), it is binding on all courts and authorities under Article 141.
4. Can my passport renewal be refused just because a criminal case is pending against me? Not automatically. Pendency alone is not an absolute bar — particularly once the concerned criminal court has granted a no-objection.
5. What is the four-week rule under Section 10A? Police or the Central Government can retain a passport temporarily for a maximum of four weeks without a formal order. Beyond that, retention requires a Section 10(3) order from the Passport Authority.
6. Which High Courts have ruled that trial courts cannot impound passports as bail conditions? Madras (2026 and 2022, Madurai Bench), Bombay (2024), and Karnataka (2022) — all relying on Suresh Nanda v. CBI.
7. What should I submit to the Passport Authority to support a renewal application during a pending case? A clear, written no-objection from the relevant criminal court, ideally specifying that the court retains control over actual travel through a prior-permission mechanism.
8. Do I need to wait until my criminal case is over before challenging a passport restriction? No. The two issues proceed on separate tracks, and you should generally challenge an unreasonable restriction while the trial is still pending.
9. What happens if the Passport Authority still refuses renewal despite a court NOC? File a writ petition under Article 226 before the jurisdictional High Court, citing Mahesh Kumar Agarwal.
10. Can a passport be revoked after a criminal conviction? Yes, under Section 10(7) — but this is distinct from impounding during a pending case, and revocation becomes void if the conviction is later set aside on appeal.
11. Is the right to travel abroad a fundamental right in India? Yes. Since Satwant Singh Sawhney (1967) and Maneka Gandhi (1978), it falls within "personal liberty" under Article 21, meaning any restriction must be fair, just, and reasonable.

Conclusion

Passport restrictions during a pending criminal trial sit at the intersection of two genuinely competing interests: the State's legitimate concern in securing an accused person's presence at trial, and an individual's constitutional right to personal liberty and movement. Indian courts have not resolved this tension by eliminating restrictions altogether — they have resolved it by insisting that restrictions take the correct legal form. A trial court can tell you not to leave the country without permission; it cannot take your passport away and call that a bail condition. A Passport Authority can weigh a pending case when assessing renewal; it cannot ignore a criminal court's own no-objection and substitute its own judgment for the court's.

If you are currently facing a restriction that doesn't fit within these boundaries, the law — as confirmed as recently as December 2025 by the Supreme Court and reinforced through 2026 by the Madras High Court — is genuinely on your side. The practical work that remains is procedural: identifying your exact scenario, building the right documentary record, and approaching the correct forum with precisely framed relief. Done correctly, most of these disputes resolve well before they require sustained litigation.

This article provides general legal information based on Indian law as of June 2026 and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case. Outcomes depend on the particular facts, the offence involved, and the forum approached. Consult a qualified criminal lawyer for advice tailored to your situation.