'No Objection' For Issuance Of Passport To Accused Can Only Be Granted By Court Before Which Criminal Proceedings Are Pending: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the person against whom the criminal proceedings are pending can be granted passport if the concerned criminal court grants the 'no-objection' for the issuance of the passport as per the provisions of the act.

The petitioner had approached the passport office for the renewal of his passport, which came to be rejected on the ground that there was adverse Police verification report stating that his involvement in a FIR before Additional Sessions Judge (Anticorruption Cases) Jammu, under sections under Section 5(d), read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the pendency of the criminal case can form the basis for rejecting the issuance/renewal of passport but if the concerned court before which the proceedings are pending gives it the nod and grants no objection to the accused, the same can be issued/renewed by the passport office.

The court further said that there was no absolute bar for seeking issuance or renewal of the passport by registration of FIR or during the pendency of the any criminal proceedings before any court.

The court for this relied on the notification issued by the Government of India, stating that the central government can exempt any person, against whom criminal proceedings are pending, in public interest after receiving the concerned court's order allowing him to travel abroad from the operation of the section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act.

The court therefore held that if the said Court grants 'NOC' in favour of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 would be well within its powers to issue passport/ travel document in favour of the petitioner notwithstanding pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner.

The court said that passport of any citizen cannot be withheld without following the due process of law and thus granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned criminal court with application seeking the issuance of travel documents in his favour.

The petitioner had challenged the communication issued by the respondent rejecting the renewal of the passport arguing that same was  illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the Passports Act, 1967. He had argued that right to travel was a fundamental right guaranteed to him and the same could not be denied except in accordance with the law.

He further argued that said impugned communication was violative of the principals of natural justice as it was rejected without affording the opportunity of hearing to him.

BACKGROUND

The petitioner challenged the communication issued by the respondent denying the renewal of the travel document on the basis of a pending criminal case. The petitioner was holding an Indian Passport, and on 29.10.2024, the petitioner applied for the renewal of the passport in the office of respondent No. 2.

The petitioner was intimated regarding adverse Police verification report and he was informed regarding his involvement in FIR No. 5/2021 for commission of offences under Sections 5(1)(d), read with section 5(2) of the J&K PC Act and section 120-B RPC before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Anti- corruption Cases), Jammu. Hence the above petition.

APPEARANCE:

S. S. Ahmad, Advocate Mr. Zulkernain Choudhary, Advocate for Petitioner

Vishal Sharma, DSGI Ms. Palavi Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG For Respondents

Case-title: Abdul Hamid vs Union of India and Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 148

Click Here To Read/Download Order