In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court dealt with a dispute involving denial of passport services to a research scientist due to a pending criminal case. The Court examined whether such pendency alone justifies refusal under the law.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Dr. Raghavender Siva Vijaya Chivukula, approached the High Court after passport authorities refused to reissue his passport. The refusal was based on an ongoing criminal case registered against him under provisions related to matrimonial disputes.
According to the case record, the petitioner had lost his passport in July 2025 while in Hyderabad and subsequently applied for reissuance. During police verification, authorities flagged a pending FIR filed by his wife under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 IPC along with provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Read also:- Gauhati HC Acquits Man in POCSO Case, Cites Weak Evidence and Contradictions
The petitioner argued that he had cooperated with the investigation and that merely having a pending case should not automatically result in denial of passport services.
Appearing before the Court, the petitioner contended that:
- He is employed as a research scientist in the United States and required to return for work.
- The passport was lost accidentally and not deliberately withheld.
- He had no intention to evade legal proceedings and undertook to appear before the trial court whenever required.
His counsel argued that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty and cannot be restricted without proper legal justification.
The Union of India and passport authorities opposed the plea, stating that:
- Under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, passport issuance can be refused if criminal proceedings are pending.
- The petitioner failed to disclose the pending case in his application.
- As per existing rules, an applicant facing criminal prosecution must obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned trial court.
Read also:- Uttarakhand HC Sets Aside Rape Convictions, Frees Accused Over Weak Forensic Chain
The petitioner’s spouse also raised concerns, alleging that granting a passport could enable him to leave the country and avoid legal proceedings.
After hearing both sides, the Court noted that the legal framework governing passports clearly requires compliance when criminal proceedings are pending.
The bench observed that the issue is not merely about pendency of a case, but about following the statutory procedure laid down under the Passports Act.
“The applicant must approach the concerned criminal court and obtain a No Objection Certificate,” the Court noted, referring to established legal precedents and government guidelines.
Read also:- Advocate Entitled to Single Vote Despite Multiple Memberships: Calcutta High Court
It further clarified that:
- If the trial court grants permission, the passport authority may issue or renew the passport.
- The duration of the passport would depend on the conditions specified by the trial court.
The High Court declined to directly order reissuance of the passport. Instead, it held that the petitioner must first approach the trial court and obtain the necessary No Objection Certificate.
Only after such permission is granted can the passport authority consider reissuing the passport in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. Raghavender Siva Vijaya Chivukula v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 25543 of 2025
Judge: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka
Decision Date: 18 March 2026
