The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that when criminal proceedings are pending against an individual, the issuance or renewal of their passport can only proceed if the competent criminal court grants a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC). The verdict came in response to a petition filed by one Abdul Hamid, whose passport renewal was rejected due to an adverse police report linking him to a pending criminal case.
Background of the Case
Abdul Hamid, the petitioner, had held an Indian Passport (No. Z2758821) issued on 03.12.2014, which expired on 02.12.2024. He applied for a renewal on 29.10.2024. However, on 12.12.2024, he received a communication from the passport office (respondent no. 2), citing an adverse police verification report and his involvement in FIR No. 5/2021.
This FIR, registered with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), accused the petitioner of offences under Sections 5(1)(d), 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code. The case was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (Anti-Corruption Cases), Jammu.
Read also: Jammu & Kashmir Apni Party Moves Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act, 2025
Despite the petitioner submitting a clarification regarding the FIR and informing the authorities about his pending legal challenge in the High Court through WP(C) No. 587/2021 and CRM(M) No. 928/2024, the renewal was denied, prompting him to move the court.
The petitioner challenged the passport office's rejection letter dated 26.12.2024 on several grounds:
- It was arbitrary, illegal, and violated the principles of natural justice.
- He was not given a fair chance to be heard before denial.
- His right to travel abroad is a fundamental right, and denial must only happen as per the law.
Read also: Justice Arun Palli Appointed As Chief Justice Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
The passport office maintained that as per protocol, a police verification request had been sent to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jammu. The report confirmed the petitioner’s involvement in an ongoing corruption case. Based on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, the renewal was denied since the criminal proceedings were pending, and no NOC was obtained from the competent court.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while hearing the matter, reaffirmed the fundamental right of an individual to travel abroad, referring to the landmark Supreme Court case of Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597).
“Passport to an Indian citizen cannot be refused or withheld without adopting the due procedure prescribed under law.”
He then discussed the relevant legal framework:
This provision allows the passport authority to refuse passport issuance if a criminal case is pending in a court.
However, the Court cited a critical exception:
This notification empowers the Central Government to exempt individuals with pending criminal cases from the provisions of Section 6(2)(f), if they produce a court order permitting them to travel.
“Even in cases where criminal proceedings are pending, a passport can be issued if the court permits the individual to travel abroad.”
This notification lays out the specific conditions under which a passport can be issued, including the validity period and renewal process based on court orders.
“If the competent criminal court grants a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC), the passport authority is fully empowered to issue or renew a passport, despite the pending criminal proceedings.”
The court further emphasized that denying a passport without giving the applicant a chance to present their case violates principles of natural justice.
Justice Sanjay Dhar disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the concerned criminal court for appropriate orders.
“If and when such an application is made by the petitioner before the concerned criminal court, the same shall be considered by the said court on its own merits, notwithstanding the stay of the proceedings that may have been ordered by this Court in the petitions filed for challenging the charge sheet.”
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, 2025