Delhi High Court Declares Passport Right Integral to Personal Liberty Under Article 21

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the right to hold a passport and travel abroad constitutes an integral facet of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a ruling delivered on February 20, 2026, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside an order by the Ministry of External Affairs impounding the passport of Yogesh Raheja, former director of Raheja Developers. The court emphasized that any state action restricting this right must meet the test of reasonableness and comply strictly with principles of natural justice.

The case stemmed from the government's decision on January 17, 2025, to impound Raheja's passport, citing his failure to disclose a pending FIR from 2018 during a renewal application. An appeal against this action was also rejected. The High Court found the impounding legally unsustainable, noting that mere registration of an FIR does not qualify as "pending criminal proceedings" under the Passports Act, 1967, unless a trial court has taken cognizance of the offence. Without such cognizance, indefinite denial or impounding of a passport amounts to an unreasonable and disproportionate infringement on personal liberty.

The judgment drew on Supreme Court precedents, including Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, which clarified that provisions like Sections 6(2)(f) and 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act aim to ensure an accused remains amenable to court jurisdiction, not to impose blanket restrictions. The Delhi High Court stressed that passport authorities must exercise their powers in accordance with statutory conditions and established judicial principles, avoiding mechanical or arbitrary actions that curtail fundamental rights.

Also Read: Delhi High Court: DV Act Doesn't Mandate Re-Entry If Alternate Home Exists

This ruling builds on long-standing constitutional interpretations, tracing back to landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, which established travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21. The decision underscores the need for proportionality in administrative actions affecting mobility, particularly when no concrete evidence shows a risk to ongoing investigations or judicial processes.

The order restores Raheja's passport rights, reinforcing protections against undue state interference in citizens' freedom of movement. Legal experts view it as a significant affirmation of individual liberties in the context of passport regulations, potentially influencing similar cases involving pending FIRs without formal cognizance.

As the judgment gains attention, it highlights the judiciary's role in balancing public interest with constitutional safeguards, ensuring that restrictions on travel remain justified and procedurally fair amid India's evolving legal landscape on personal freedoms.

Also Read: Priya Kapur Seeks Dismissal of Suit: Accuses Rani Kapur of Cheating Court