In a precedent that could expedite business travel from India’s northeast, the Gauhati High Court has ruled that pending police investigations alone are insufficient grounds to deny a passport. Delivering judgment in Khan & Anr v. Union of India on 30 September 2026, Justice Devashish Barua interpreted Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. The provision allows refusal only when “proceedings in respect of an offence are pending before a criminal court.” Since an FIR is merely an accusation and no court had yet taken cognizance against the petitioners, the Regional Passport Office must process their Tatkal applications once they clarify the status of the cases. For Indian professionals frequently entangled in local disputes—common in infrastructure and extractive projects in Assam and Meghalaya—the judgment removes a procedural roadblock. It also narrows discretionary refusal, compelling passport authorities to check court records rather than rely solely on adverse police verification. In practice, mobility teams should ensure that employees facing police complaints obtain certified case-status reports to demonstrate whether cognizance has been taken. Where no court proceedings exist, the Gauhati ruling can be cited to press for timely issuance or renewal under the Tatkal (expedited) scheme. Because passport delays can derail overseas project kick-offs, particularly for smaller firms without internal legal teams, the decision offers a welcome compliance roadmap: transparency on FIR closure reports and proactive disclosures can pre-empt refusals.
Source: LawLens
