The Kerala High Court recently ruled in favor of a man seeking renewal of his passport, even though an Interpol red corner notice was still pending against him. The case titled Muhammed Rafsal v Union of India and Others (WP(C) No. 2723 of 2025) involved a petitioner who had previously been convicted in Qatar in 2020.
He approached the court after passport authorities denied his request for passport renewal. The reason cited was the red corner notice and two pending criminal cases against him in Kerala. However, the petitioner informed the Court that for over four years, no action had been taken by Qatari authorities to initiate extradition proceedings from India.
“The mere existence of a red corner notice does not automatically justify arrest or denial of rights,”
the High Court said, referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v State of Maharashtra (2009). In that ruling, it was made clear that unless extradition procedures under the Extradition Act, 1962 are started, a person cannot be extradited from India.
The Kerala High Court emphasized that the right to travel abroad is part of the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
"Denying a passport solely based on a red corner notice, without extradition action, violates personal liberty,” the Court observed.
It was also brought to the Court’s attention that two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner – one before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy, and another before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court–III, North Paravur. Despite these cases, both trial courts had already allowed the renewal of the petitioner’s passport—Chalakkudy for 3 years and Paravur for 5 years—with a condition that he must seek prior court permission before travelling abroad.
The government opposed the renewal, citing both the pending red notice and the criminal cases. However, the High Court rejected this argument.
“Once the trial courts have permitted passport renewal, there is no valid reason for authorities to deny it further,” the Court held.
The High Court directed the passport authority to renew the passport for a period of 3 years, respecting the trial court's previous directions.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Orders Takedown of Six Defamatory Videos Against Minister Girish Mahajan
Quote:
"There is no bar under the law that prevents passport renewal when courts have already granted permission," the Court highlighted.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate S. Sanal Kumar, along with advocates T.J. Seema, Bhavana Velayudhan, Devarathan S., and Anu Balakrishna Nambiar. The respondents were represented by advocates Sreelal Warriar, T.C. Krishna (Senior Central Government Counsel), and Sreejith V.S.
Case No: WP(C) 2723 of 2025
Case Title: Muhammed Rafsal v Union of India and Others
