The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application filed by activist Teesta Setalvad seeking release of her passport, observing that no directions were required at this stage in the absence of any specific travel plan.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta, Satish Chandra Sharma and Alok Aradhe noted that the request was premature and clarified that the Court would consider granting permission once a concrete itinerary for foreign travel is placed on record. During the hearing, the Court emphasised that the passport would not be returned in the abstract without any scheduled travel.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Setalvad, submitted that permission of the Court would in any case be required before any foreign travel and also indicated that the passport may be needed for renewal within a year. Responding to this, Justice Datta remarked that the Court would consider the request when details of proposed travel such as destination and schedule are furnished.

The Court reiterated that while permission for travel may be granted in appropriate cases, such consideration would arise only upon a definite and immediate requirement being demonstrated.