Vemula Mounika vs THE UNION OF INDIA — WP/14517/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 21st May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: APHC010281162026

Filing Number

WP/22509/2026

Filing Date

14-May-2026

Registration No

WP/14517/2026

Registration Date

14-May-2026

Judge

Tuhin Kumar Gedela

Coram

Tuhin Kumar Gedela

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MATTERS (MISC.MATTERS) ( 7 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

21-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Vemula Mounika

    Adv. CHAITANYA PALISETTY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE UNION OF INDIA

  2. 2.The Joint Secretary PSP and Chief Passport Officer,

  3. 3.The Regional Passport Officer,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-May-2026

    Tuhin Kumar GedelaView PDF

    Case Summary: Vemula Mounika v. Union of India (WP 14517/2026) The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted Vemula Mounika's petition for a writ of mandamus, directing passport authorities to process her passport application within two weeks. The court held that mere pendency of a criminal case (where cognizance hasn't been taken) cannot be an absolute bar to passport issuance, as the right to travel is a fundamental right under Article 21. The respondents must balance this constitutional right with law enforcement necessities on a case-by-case basis. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-May-2026

    Admission (Central Govt.)

    Tuhin Kumar Gedela

  4. 15-May-2026

    Tuhin Kumar GedelaView PDF

  5. 15-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 14-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/14517/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Vemula Mounika v. Union of India (WP 14517/2026) The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted Vemula Mounika's petition for a writ of mandamus, directing passport authorities to process her passport application within two weeks. The court held that mere pendency of a criminal case (where cognizance hasn't been taken) cannot be an absolute bar to passport issuance, as the right to travel is a fundamental right under Article 21. The respondents must balance this constitutional right with law enforcement necessities on a case-by-case basis. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case