Supreme Court on Passport Rights of UAPA Accused: Article 21, Liberty & Limits of Procedure

When Procedure Starts Punishing

In a democracy governed by the rule of law, procedure is meant to protect rights, not quietly erase them. This fundamental idea lay at the heart of a recent and closely watched order of the Supreme Court of India, where the Court directed passport authorities to re-issue a passport to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The ruling may appear narrow at first glance—focused on one individual and one passport. But in reality, it speaks to a much larger constitutional question: Can the State use procedural safeguards as indirect punishment, even before guilt is proven?

The Supreme Court’s answer was a clear and reasoned no.

The Case at a Glance

The accused had approached the Court after being denied a passport despite complying with court-imposed conditions and without any judicial order expressly restricting travel.

What the Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court directed the passport authority to re-issue the passport, firmly observing that:

• Procedural safeguards are meant to protect the legal process, not become barriers to the enjoyment of fundamental rights.

The Court made it clear that:

• Mere pendency of a criminal case, even under a stringent law like UAPA, cannot automatically justify denial of a passport.
• Executive authorities cannot impose travel restrictions by default, unless supported by a specific judicial order.
• The right to travel abroad, while regulated, flows from personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Logic Behind the Decision

1. Presumption of Innocence Still Matters

Being an accused does not make a person guilty. The Court reaffirmed that criminal law punishes after conviction, not before it.

2. Article 21 Has Real Meaning

The right to life and personal liberty is not an abstract promise. It includes:

• Dignity
• Freedom of movement
• The ability to pursue work, education, and personal obligations

Denying a passport without judicial scrutiny effectively curtails liberty without due process.

3. Executive Discretion Has Limits

Passport authorities perform an administrative function. The Court reminded them that they cannot act as parallel courts, especially in sensitive matters involving liberty.

Why This Order Is So Significant

It Draws a Line Between Law Enforcement and Punishment

UAPA is a stringent statute designed to combat serious threats to national security. However, the Court emphasized that stringency of the law does not dilute constitutional protections.

It Prevents “Invisible Punishment”

Travel bans, passport denials, and administrative restrictions can quietly punish individuals for years—without trial or conviction. This judgment directly addresses that danger.

It Has Nationwide Impact

The ruling will guide:

• Passport authorities
• Investigating agencies
• Trial courts handling bail and travel permissions

It sends a strong message: administrative convenience cannot override constitutional rights.

A Broader Message from the Court

Beyond passports and UAPA, the judgment reflects a deeper judicial philosophy—the Constitution does not stop working in difficult cases. Rights do not disappear simply because allegations are serious.

By restoring balance between security concerns and civil liberties, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its role as the final guardian against procedural overreach.

Conclusion: Liberty Cannot Be Lost by Default

This ruling stands as a reminder that freedom is not a favour granted by the State, but a right protected by the Constitution. Even in cases involving national security laws, fairness, reason, and judicial oversight must prevail.

In an era where procedure can easily become punishment, the Supreme Court’s message is unmistakable:

Safeguards must protect liberty—not suffocate it.

Past Supreme Court Precedents on Passports & Article 21

The recent direction to re-issue a passport to a UAPA accused is not an isolated ruling. It stands firmly on decades of constitutional jurisprudence where the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to travel abroad is an essential facet of personal liberty under Article 21.

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

This landmark judgment transformed Indian constitutional law.

• The Court held that the right to travel abroad is part of “personal liberty” under Article 21.
• Any restriction on a passport must follow procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary or mechanical.
• The judgment dismantled the idea that executive discretion alone is sufficient to curtail liberty.

Relevance to the present case:

The Court’s insistence that passport authorities cannot act mechanically flows directly from Maneka Gandhi. Denial of a passport without individualized reasoning violates Article 21.

2. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967)

• Even before Maneka Gandhi, the Court recognized international travel as a liberty interest.
• Held that the State cannot deprive a citizen of the right to travel abroad without the authority of law.
• Executive instructions alone are insufficient.

Relevance:

The recent order reinforces that passport denial must be grounded in law, not administrative caution or suspicion.

3. Suresh Nanda v. CBI (2008)

This case addressed the seizure and impounding of passports during criminal investigations.

• The Court ruled that only passport authorities under the Passport Act have the power to impound a passport, not investigating agencies.
• Courts and agencies cannot indirectly restrict travel without following statutory safeguards.

Relevance:

In the UAPA passport case, the Supreme Court echoed this principle by limiting executive overreach and reaffirming statutory boundaries.

4. Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India (2020)

While not a passport case per se, the judgment is crucial for Article 21 jurisprudence.

• The Court held that liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of procedure.
• Constitutional courts must intervene when State action disproportionately curtails freedom.

Relevance:

The phrase “procedural safeguards shouldn’t become barriers” reflects the same constitutional philosophy articulated here.

5. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

Though primarily about privacy, the judgment expanded the scope of Article 21.

• Affirmed that personal liberty includes autonomy, dignity, and freedom of movement.
• Any restriction must satisfy legality, necessity, and proportionality.

Relevance:

Automatic denial of passports to accused persons fails the test of proportionality laid down in Puttaswamy.

How the Present Order Fits Into This Jurisprudence

Taken together, these precedents establish a clear constitutional thread:

• Accusation ≠ guilt
• Procedure ≠ punishment
• Executive caution ≠ constitutional justification

By directing re-issuance of the passport, the Supreme Court has reapplied settled constitutional law to a contemporary national-security context, ensuring that even stringent statutes like UAPA do not eclipse fundamental rights.

Why This Strengthens the Judgment’s Authority

Because the ruling is anchored in long-standing Article 21 jurisprudence, it is likely to:

• Be cited frequently in future bail, travel, and passport disputes
• Restrain automatic administrative denial practices
• Strengthen judicial oversight over executive discretion

Closing Thought

From Satwant Singh to Maneka Gandhi to the present order, the Supreme Court’s message has remained consistent:

Liberty may be regulated by law, but it cannot be extinguished by procedure.

Key Takeaways for Lawyers & Litigants

1. Passport Denial Is Not Automatic in Criminal Cases

• Mere registration or pendency of a criminal case—even under stringent laws like UAPA—does not automatically justify refusal or non-reissuance of a passport.
• Passport authorities must examine case-specific facts, not act on blanket assumptions.

2. Judicial Order Is Crucial

• Only a court can impose travel restrictions.
• In the absence of a specific judicial direction restraining foreign travel, administrative authorities cannot deny a passport on their own.

3. Article 21 Remains Central

• The right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21.
• Any restriction must satisfy the test of being fair, just, reasonable, and proportionate.

4. Procedural Safeguards Cannot Become Punitive

• Safeguards exist to protect the process, not to operate as indirect punishment before conviction.
• Mechanical application of rules may be struck down as unconstitutional.

5. Clear Remedy for Accused Persons

For litigants facing passport denial:

• Approach the trial court for clarification or permission if required.
• If denial persists without judicial backing, constitutional courts can be approached directly.
• Courts are increasingly receptive to liberty-based challenges.

6. Guidance for Defense Counsel

• Cite Maneka Gandhi, Suresh Nanda, and this ruling to challenge passport refusals.
• Emphasize presumption of innocence and absence of flight-risk findings.
• Seek reasoned orders, not administrative endorsements.

7. Caution for Investigating Agencies

• Agencies cannot achieve indirectly (through passport denial) what they have not secured directly from a court.
• Any attempt to restrict travel must pass judicial scrutiny, not administrative convenience.

8. Wider Impact Beyond UAPA

• This ruling applies equally to cases under IPC, NDPS, PMLA, and other special statutes.
• It reinforces that liberty principles cut across all criminal law regimes.

Bottom Line

For both lawyers and litigants, the Supreme Court’s message is unambiguous:
Liberty is the rule; restriction is the exception—and must always be justified by law, reason, and a court order.