Passport Cannot Be Reissued Without Trial Court NOC When Criminal Case Is Pending: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that in view of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and governing precedent, a person facing pending criminal proceedings must first obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the trial court for passport reissuance/renewal. Only thereafter can the passport authority consider the request, and such NOC does not by itself amount to permission to travel...
The Telangana High Court has held that in view of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act and governing precedent, a person facing pending criminal proceedings must first obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the trial court for passport reissuance/renewal. Only thereafter can the passport authority consider the request, and such NOC does not by itself amount to permission to travel abroad.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka quoted from the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 194 of 2026, which had referred to Mahesh Kumar Agarwal and Nidhi Agarwal, as follows:
“In the light of the principle laid down… we are of the considered view that the appellant should make an application for seeking NOC from the concerned trial courts where criminal cases are pending against him. It is upon issuance of NOC that the appellant should file an application for renewal of the passport… Otherwise… issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate cases.”
The petitioner, a research scientist working in the United States, approached the Court challenging the refusal of passport reissuance on account of a pending criminal case registered by his wife under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. He contended that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground to deny passport issuance and that the refusal violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21.
It was further submitted that he had lost his passport during a visit to India and required reissuance urgently to return to his employment in the United States, failing which he would suffer “severe professional, financial, and legal consequences.” The petitioner also undertook to cooperate with the criminal proceedings and appear before the trial court as required.
Opposing the plea, the Union of India and passport authorities relied on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, contending that issuance must be refused when criminal proceedings are pending before a competent court. They further argued that, as per the applicable Office Memorandum, an applicant must obtain an NOC from the trial court, and in its absence, passport reissuance cannot be processed.
The respondent-wife also opposed the petition, alleging suppression of material facts and expressing apprehension that grant of a passport would enable the petitioner to leave the country and evade proceedings.
At the outset, the Court noted that criminal proceedings were admittedly pending against the petitioner and that a charge sheet had already been filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In such circumstances, the statutory scheme under Section 6(2)(f), read with relevant notifications and precedents, required the applicant to obtain prior permission from the trial court.
Relying on a recent Division Bench judgment, the Court reiterated that “directing passport renewal” in such cases would be contrary to the statutory framework, and that the proper course is to seek an NOC from the criminal court.
However, considering the petitioner's employment constraints and undertaking to cooperate with trial, the Court granted liberty to approach the trial court forthwith and directed that such application be considered “expeditiously, preferably on the same day.”
The Court further clarified that grant of an NOC for passport reissuance “shall not be construed as a permission to travel abroad,” and that a separate application would be required for permission to travel, to be considered on its own merits.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of without costs.
Case Title: Dr. Raghavender Siva Vijaya Chivukula v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 25543 of 2025
Appearance: Sri Nooty Vasishta Venkateswarlu for the Petitioner; Ms. G. Sampada, SC for Central Government, along with Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India for Respondent Nos.1 & 2; Sri S. Satyam Reddy, Senior Counsel, along with Sri S. Ranga Rao for Respondent No.3.