Shravan Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 19 May 2026 · 2026:DHC:4793

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

W.P.(C) 9509/2021

2026:DHC:4793

constitutional petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court set aside a passport revocation order passed without hearing, affirming that natural justice and Article 21 protections apply to passport rights under the Passports Act.

Full Text

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 9509/2021 & CM APPL. 21709/2026
Date of Decision: 19.05.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:-
SHRAVAN GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Mir, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Yudhister Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Mr. Saud Khan, Mr. Pulkit Shree, Mr. Dev Vrat Arya, Advocates.

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Anubha Bhardwaj, CGSC, Ms. Ananya Shamshery, Adv. for UOI.
Mr. DP Singh, ASG and Special Counsel, Mr. Manu Mishra, Ms. Garima Saxena and Mr. Imaan Khera, Advs. for R-5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 21710/2026 (for exemption)

JUDGMENT

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 9509/2021 & CM APPL. 21709/2026

3. The present petition assails the order dated 03.08.2021 and show KUMAR KAURAV cause notices dated 16.03.2021 and 20.07.2021 (“Impugned Order”) issued under Section 10(3)(b), 10(3)(c) and 10(3)(h) of the Passports Act, 1967, whereby, the petitioner’s passport was revoked.

4. The petitioner is an Indian passport holder and claims to be engaged in international business activities. It is the case of the petitioner that certain proceedings were initiated by the passport authorities on account of communications received from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

5. It is stated that the petitioner was not named as an accused in ECIR or in the prosecution complaints.

6. The petitioner submits that owing to business commitments and medical reasons the petitioner was residing abroad and, therefore, sought participation in the proceeding through virtual mode.

7. Vide order dated 15.04.2021 in W.P.(C) 4689/2021, this Court permitted continuation of proceedings before the passport authorities and recorded that, if any hearing was required, the petitioner would be allowed to participate through video conferencing.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the order dated 15.04.2021, a show cause notice dated 20.07.2021 was issued requiring petitioner’s physical appearance. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 03.08.2021 revoking the passport came to be issued.

9. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have revoked petitioner’s passport without affording opportunity of hearing.

10. Vide order dated 13.02.2026 this petition was disposed of and the petitioner was relegated to avail the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act, 1967.

11. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal (LPA)1 before the Division Bench of this Court. Vide order dated 24.03.2026, the Division Bench noted that the impugned order dated 03.08.2021 was passed prior to the expiry of the period granted under the show cause notice dated 20.07.2021. The Court further noted that the earlier reply submitted by the petitioner had also not been dealt with and thereupon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents was called upon to explain as to why the impugned order should not be set aside. The specific reference to paragraph nos. 33 to 38 can be made which are extracted as under:

“33. The case set up by the appellant has already been discussed above. The first show cause notice to the appellant was issued on 16.03.2021 pursuant to which the reply is said to have been submitted by the appellant on 31.03.2021. Since no decision in the matter was taken, W.P.(C.) No. 4689/2021 was preferred by the appellant which was disposed of with the observation that the appellant may file detailed reply and further that the appellant shall be permitted to participate in the proceedings, drawn pursuant to the show cause notice dated 16.03.2021, through video conferencing. 34. Thereafter, the second show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 20.07.2021 which was received as per the Track Consignment Report of the Indian Postal Department, by the appellant on 28.07.2021. The time period as given in the show cause notice dated 20.07.2021 for furnishing the reply expired on 04.08.2021; however, the final order was passed even before expiry of the said period, i.e. on 03.08.2021. These facts are undisputed. 35. Further, what we notice, as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, is that the final order dated 03.08.2021 does not discuss even the reply said to have been submitted by the appellant on 31.03.2021. 36. For the aforesaid facts of the situation, prima facie, the appellant has been able to make out a case where the impugned order appears to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and, accordingly, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation (supra), in our opinion, it was a case where discretion of the learned Single Judge to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not have been declined solely for the reason of availability of a statutory remedy

LPA 154/2026 dated 24.03.2026 available under Section 11 of the Passports Act.

37. Having regard to the nature of proceedings which are drawn by the authorities by invoking Section 10(3) of the Passports Act and the situation to which a passport holder is likely to land himself once the passport is revoked, principles of natural justice assume special significance keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi (supra).

38. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has erred while refusing to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of remedy of statutory appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act, specially keeping in view the fact that the petition was entertained way back in the year 2021 itself.”

7,034 characters total

12. A bare reading of the aforesaid would indicate that the petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the impugned order.

13. Mrs. Anubha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, on instructions, submits that in the interregnum the passport of the petitioner has expired. She further submits that if the petitioner applies for a fresh passport, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. She further submits that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing before taking a decision.

14. The aforesaid stand satisfies the grievance raised by the petitioner. The petitioner will have to apply for renewal of the passport. If he does so, let an opportunity of hearing be afforded to the petitioner. His application be dealt with in accordance with law.

15. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs Union of India & Anr.[2] observed that renewal or reissuance of a passport upon expiry is to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Passports Act and cannot be denied mechanically. The Court further emphasised that 2025 INSC 1476 denial of renewal of a passport does not operate in a vacuum. The right to travel abroad and the right to hold a passport are facets of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 and, therefore, any restriction on such right must bear a rational nexus with a legitimate purpose.

16. In view of the aforenoted, the respondents while considering the petitioner’s applications shall bear in mind the observations made in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal.

17. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition along with pending application stands disposed of. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside.

18. The decision-making authority shall be at liberty to consider the submissions made by any other investigating agencies etc.

JUDGE MAY 19, 2026 Sh/ss

Shravan Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation