Pending Criminal Case Doesn't Bar Passport Renewal, NOC From Court Not Needed In Absence Of Restraint Order: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the Passport authorities can't compel an applicant to get permission of criminal court for passport renewal, merely due to pendency of criminal proceedings against him, especially when the proceedings were stayed and the court had not restrained possession of passport.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 (the Act) does not contemplate an absolute or automatic bar on issuance/renewal of passport, solely due to pendency of criminal proceedings. The restriction is qualified, purpose-oriented and meant to secure amenability of accused to criminal jurisdiction.

It was held that difference between renewal of a passport and permission to leave the country was fundamental, wherein renewal by itself just enabled possession of a valid civil document, without conferring any right to travel or diluting authority of criminal court.

“In the constitutional framework, the freedom to move and to travel, though subject to regulation by law, forms an integral facet of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While such freedom is not absolute, any regulatory restraint must remain grounded in law and proportionate to the object sought to be achieved, and cannot be permitted to assume the character of a punitive or indefinite restriction in the absence of adjudicated guilt.”

The petitioner was accused in a case alleging forged will in which he had signed as a witness, and thus was arrayed as an accused. A stay was in operation on the criminal proceedings.

When the petitioner applied for his passport renewal, he was asked to indicate whether the criminal proceedings were disposed of. Since the proceedings were still pending, the renewal was not proceeded with. Hence, the petition was filed.

It was argued by the petitioner that he had applied only for renewal and had not sought permission to travel. Since no order was passed by the trial court restraining him from holding passport, mere pendency of criminal case could not trigger the condition of seeking court's permission for passport renewal.

On the contrary, it was argued by the State that since the petitioner did not seek court's permission before applying for passport renewal, the renewal was not proceeded with.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, and held that the limited purpose of the restriction under this provision was to secure presence of accused before criminal court, and not to impose collateral consequences unrelated to the object.

The Court observed that the restriction was regulatory and could not assume the character of a punitive and indefinite civil liability.

It was highlighted that the petitioner had merely sought passport renewal without any permission to travel, which did not dilute any judicial control.

“Viewed in this backdrop, the contention that the petitioner was required to approach the criminal court for permission or a 'no objection' even at the stage of renewal, in the absence of any restraint order, cannot be accepted. Such insistence would amount to importing a requirement not contemplated either by the statute or by the exemption notification.”

The Court held that denying passport renewal merely due to pendency of criminal proceedings neither advanced object of statute, nor satisfied the requirement of proportionality. It was held that such requirement imposed an unreasonable and disproportionate burden unconnected with the object of statute.

Accordingly, while opining that the provision did not convert renewal of passport into an indirect or anticipatory mechanism of travel control, the petition was allowed.

The State was directed to renew petitioner's passport subject of fulfilment of statutory requirements.

Title: Pradeep Kumar Sarwogi v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 50

Click Here To Read/Download Order