Obtaining Passport Is Constitutional Right, Citizens Not Required To Prove 'Need' For Foreign Travel: J&K&L High Court

Justice Sanjay Dhar made this significant observation while setting aside an order of the Special Judge, Anticorruption, Anantnag, who had rejected an application for issuance of NOC on the ground that the applicant had not shown any pressing necessity for foreign travel.

Justice Dhar underscored the constitutional underpinning of this freedom, observing,

“Right to hold a passport is an important constitutional right of a citizen. Therefore, for obtaining passport or NOC, it is not necessary for a citizen to demonstrate before the court or before the Passport Authority that he has some pressing need for travelling abroad. Since a citizen has a right to hold a passport, as such, even without his need for travelling abroad, he is entitled to hold a passport.”

The case arose out of a petition filed by one Zahoor Ahmad Pahalwan, who challenged the trial court's order refusing him an NOC for obtaining a five-year passport. Pahalwan, an accused facing trial in an FIR involving offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, had earlier applied for an NOC to undertake Hajj pilgrimage.

On 24.02.2025, the trial court had granted him a limited NOC valid for one year, pursuant to which a one-year passport was issued. After completion of the pilgrimage, he approached the trial court seeking a fresh NOC for a full-term passport renewal.

The trial court, however, dismissed the application as “premature,” noting that the existing NOC remained valid till 23.02.2026, and further held that the petitioner had not produced any documents showing a need to travel abroad for business purposes.

Justice Dhar found both grounds “specious” and contrary to established legal principles. Referring to the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty and that no person can be deprived of it except in accordance with law. The Court emphasized that since a passport is mandatory for travel abroad, the right to hold a passport assumes constitutional significance.

The Court further held that the trial court had misdirected itself by insisting on proof of necessity for foreign travel. Such a requirement, the High Court said, has no basis in law as an accused seeking an NOC is not required to establish business reasons or travel exigencies.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the criminal court's role is limited for it must only examine whether granting an NOC would jeopardize the accused's availability for trial. No extraneous factors should influence the decision. As Justice Dhar observed, the only relevant test is whether the accused, if allowed to travel abroad, will still remain available to face prosecution.

“.. a criminal court while considering an application for grant of NOC has only to advert itself to the question as to whether the accused, if allowed to travel abroad, would be available to face the trial. No other factor should influence the decision of the criminal court while considering an application for grant of NOC in favour of an accused who intends to obtain a passport/travel document”, the bench underscored.

Taking note that the petitioner's current passport validity was approaching expiry in early 2026, the Court held that he was entitled to seek renewal and that the earlier NOC's remaining validity did not bar such a request.

Setting aside the impugned order, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Special Judge, directing the trial court to reconsider the application strictly in light of the legal principles outlined in the judgment.

APPEARANCES:

For Petitioner: Mr. Saqib Shabir, Advocate.

For Respondents: Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA.

Case Title: Zahoor Ahmad Pahalwan Vs UT Of J&K

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment