Passports represents a person’s freedom to move beyond national borders. Many people facing a criminal case in India suddenly find their passport impounded. Most assume that a pending case means an automatic travel ban. That assumption is legally incorrect.

The Problem

People often confuse “seizure” of a passport by the police with “impounding” by a proper authority. These are legally different actions with different consequences. Understanding this difference is the first step in knowing your rights.

The Statutory Framework

Section 10(3) of the Passports Act¹, 1967 is the only source of power to impound or revoke a passport. Clause (e) allows impounding where proceedings for an alleged offence by the passport holder are pending before a criminal court in India. This power belongs only to the “passport authority” — not the police, and not, ordinarily, the trial court.

In Suresh Nanda v. CBI², the Supreme Court held that while police may seize a passport under Section 102 of the CrPC³, they have no power to impound it — that power lies only with the passport authority under the special statute. The Court explained that the Passports Act, being a special law, prevails over the general CrPC provisions on seizure and impounding. So if the police simply hold on to a passport for “safe custody” during trial, without a formal order from the passport authority, that retention itself is legally weak.

The Constitutional Angle 

The right to travel abroad flows from the Constitution, not just the Passports Act. In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam⁴, a five-judge bench held that no person can be deprived of the right to travel except through a procedure established by law, reading this right into Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty. This was strengthened in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India⁵, where the Court ruled that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty, and any procedure taking it away must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary. This means every impounding order must pass a fairness test, not just a technical one.

Safeguards Often Ignored 

Because impounding has serious consequences, courts insist on basic fairness. An order under Section 10(3) must give reasons, and the holder must usually get a chance to be heard before the passport is impounded — a principle drawn from State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei⁶.

An appeal also lies to the Central Passport Organisation within thirty days, and further to the Ministry of External Affairs, apart from a writ petition under Article 226.

Courts have further clarified that a pending case alone is not enough reason to impound a passport. In Navin Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India⁷, mere pendency of a criminal case was held insufficient by itself. In Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P⁸., the Supreme Court cautioned that impounding a passport should not be routine and must be based on a real, investigation-backed fear that the accused will abscond.

What Can Be Done 

Firstly, check whether the impounding order actually follows Section 10(3) — was it passed by the right authority, with reasons, after a hearing? , it can be challenged through a writ petition. Second, and more commonly, an application can be filed before the trial court seeking permission for temporary foreign travel, often with conditions like an undertaking to return, or a bond. Courts regularly allow such conditional travel.

Conclusion 

A pending criminal case restricts foreign travel only through a specific, accountable legal process — never automatically. Any curb on the right to travel must be fair and justified.

Footnotes

• Section 10(3) Passports Act
• Suresh Nanda v. CBI
• Section 102 CrPC
• Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
• State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei
• Navin Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India
• Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P