'Issuing Passport Does Not Give Right To Travel Abroad': Srinagar Court Paves Way For Passport Renewal Of Dr. Farooq Abdullah Accused In JKCA Case

Holding that renewal of a passport and permission to travel abroad operate in distinct legal spheres, the Court directed the Regional Passport Office, Srinagar, to consider renewal of Dr. Abdullah's passport for a period of one year, subject to statutory safeguards and conditions imposed by the Court.

The Court observed that pendency of criminal proceedings does not, by itself, create an absolute bar to issuance or renewal of a passport, particularly when the applicant continues to remain bound by bail conditions requiring prior judicial permission before leaving the territorial jurisdiction.

It held that issuance of a passport merely enables a citizen to possess a travel document and does not automatically authorise foreign travel in disregard of judicial restrictions.

Additional Sessions Judge Farooq Ahmad Bhat passed the order while allowing an application filed by Dr. Farooq Abdullah, who sought a No Objection Certificate after the Regional Passport Office called upon him to furnish permission from the competent criminal court in view of the pendency of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR relating to the alleged misappropriation of funds of the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association.

Background:

Dr. Farooq Abdullah is facing prosecution in the JKCA funds misappropriation case registered pursuant to directions of the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation. After completion of investigation, the CBI filed a charge-sheet alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 406 and 409 RPC, among others.

Charges were framed against Dr. Abdullah by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, whereafter he challenged the order framing charges before the Sessions Court. By an interim order dated 25 April 2026, the Sessions Court stayed the operation of the order framing charges and all consequential proceedings against him pending disposal of the criminal revision.

Meanwhile, having applied for renewal of his passport, Dr. Abdullah received a communication from the Regional Passport Office requiring him to furnish either an acquittal order or a No Objection Certificate from the competent criminal court in terms of the notifications issued under the Passports Act, 1967.

Contending that the stay of the proceedings did not amount to an acquittal and that he had always cooperated with the investigation and court proceedings, he sought issuance of an NOC to enable processing of his passport application.

The CBI had opposed the application, contending that the charges had not been quashed but merely kept in abeyance and that, considering the seriousness of the allegations, there existed a reasonable apprehension that issuance of a passport might facilitate the petitioner's departure from India and frustrate the pending criminal proceedings.

Court's Observations:

Examining the statutory framework under the Passports Act, 1967, the Court observed that although Section 6(2)(f) empowers refusal of a passport where criminal proceedings are pending, the Central Government, through Notification GSR 298(E) as amended by GSR 570(E), has carved out an exception permitting issuance or renewal of passports where the competent criminal court grants permission.

The Court held that the statutory notifications recognise the supervisory role of criminal courts in balancing an individual's constitutional right to travel with the need to secure his presence during criminal proceedings. Referring to the recent Supreme Court decision in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, the Court observed that the right to travel abroad forms part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution and that pendency of criminal proceedings cannot, by itself, operate as an absolute embargo on renewal of a passport.

Emphasising the distinction between possession of a passport and permission to undertake foreign travel, the Court observed,

"Issuance of a passport merely equips a citizen with a travel document and does not automatically authorise departure from India in disregard of subsisting judicial restrictions."

The Court further held that grant of an NOC would merely enable the Passport Office to process the application and would neither supersede the bail conditions imposed upon Dr. Abdullah nor dilute the jurisdiction of the criminal court regulating his movements. It observed,

"The jurisdiction to regulate the petitioner's physical departure from India continues to remain distinct from the administrative act of issuance of a passport." 

Rejecting the CBI's apprehension that renewal of the passport would automatically permit foreign travel, the Court observed that the existing bail conditions already prohibited Dr. Abdullah from leaving the territorial jurisdiction without prior permission of the competent court and that those restrictions would continue to operate notwithstanding renewal of the passport. 

Accordingly, the Court issued a No Objection Certificate to the Regional Passport Officer, Srinagar, directing consideration of renewal of Dr. Farooq Abdullah's passport for one year, subject to the condition that he was not involved in any offence other than the pending JKCA case and that no other criminal case existed disentitling him from obtaining a passport. 

The Court further directed that if Dr. Abdullah intended to travel outside the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir or abroad, he must obtain prior permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. It also clarified that if any order in the pending criminal proceedings was subsequently varied or modified against the petitioner's interest, the No Objection Certificate issued by the Court would automatically stand revoked. 

Case Title: Dr. Farooq Abdullah v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment