Judicial Clarification on Passport Issuance amid Pending Criminal Proceedings – NOC under GSR 570(E)

1. Introduction

In Abdul Hamid v. Union of India & Anr. (WP(C) No. 3093/2024, Jammu & Kashmir High Court, 07 April 2025), the petitioner, Mr. Abdul Hamid, challenged a communication of the Passport Authority (Respondent No. 2) that sought further clarification on an adverse police report and demanded a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) from the criminal court in which proceedings were pending against him.

Background: Abdul Hamid’s passport, expiring 02 December 2024, was up for renewal when the Passport Authority flagged an ongoing anti‑corruption charge sheet (FIR No. 5/2021) and required a court‑issued NOC.

Key Issues: (i) Whether a passport renewal can be denied or deferred on the sole ground that criminal proceedings are pending, under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967; (ii) Whether the Passport Authority must await a court‑issued NOC before issuing or renewing a passport in such circumstances; (iii) The interplay between statutory refusal grounds and the Government’s notification (GSR 570(E) dated 25 August 1993) which exempts applicants facing criminal charges upon production of a court order permitting travel.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court held that while Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act does empower a Passport Authority to refuse issuance when criminal proceedings are pending, the Government’s Notification GSR 570(E) creates an exemption. Under that Notification, an applicant facing pending criminal proceedings may be granted a passport if he produces an order from the criminal court permitting departure. In Mr. Hamid’s case, the communication requiring a court‑issued NOC was neither illegal nor arbitrary; rather, it reflected compliance with the Notification. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the criminal court for an appropriate order (NOC). Once such an order is obtained, the Passport Authority must issue the passport in accordance with the Act and Notification.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597: Established “right to travel abroad” as a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle underscores that a passport cannot be denied arbitrarily and must follow the procedure prescribed by the Passports Act.
• Passports Act, 1967, Section 6: Lists specific and exhaustive grounds for refusal of passports or endorsements. Notably, Section 6(2)(f) permits refusal where criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant.
• Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25 August 1993: Exempts from Section 6(2)(f) those applicants facing criminal proceedings who produce a court order allowing travel. Conditions on passport validity and renewals are laid down therein.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Fundamental Right to Travel: The Court reaffirmed the Menaka Gandhi ratio that travel is protected under Article 21, but is subject to reasonable restrictions prescribed by law, namely the Passports Act.
2. Statutory Scheme: Section 6(2)(f) of the Act authorizes refusal on the ground of pending criminal proceedings. However, Section 22 empowers the Central Government to exempt certain applicants by notification.
3. Notification as Law: The 1993 Notification (GSR 570(E)) operates as a legislative exemption to Section 6(2)(f). It stipulates that a passport may be issued to an accused if the criminal court grants explicit permission for departure and the passport authority is furnished with that order.
4. Authority’s Discretion: The Passport Authority acted within its statutory mandate when it requested an NOC from the criminal court. The communication was thus neither arbitrary nor mala fide.
5. Direction: The High Court directed the petitioner to seek an NOC from the trial court. Upon production of that order, the Passport Authority is bound to issue or renew the passport under the terms of the Notification.

3.3 Impact

This decision provides authoritative guidance on the intersection of Section 6(2)(f) and Notification GSR 570(E). Key implications include:

• Passport authorities must follow the exemption scheme and cannot withhold passports indefinitely on the ground of pending charges alone.
• Applicants under criminal prosecution have a clear remedial avenue: approach the criminal court for an order permitting travel.
• Trial courts must frame and dispose of NOC applications promptly, balancing the interest of administration of justice and the fundamental right to travel.
• Future litigants and administrative officers will rely on this ruling to interpret refusal grounds and exemption conditions under the Passports Act.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Passports Act, 1967 – Section 6(2)(f): Empowers passport authorities to refuse passports when criminal proceedings are pending.
• Notification GSR 570(E): A Government order exempting accused persons from refusal on the above ground, provided a court permits their travel abroad.
• No Objection Certificate (NOC): A court order stating that it has no objection to the accused leaving the country for specified purposes and period.

5. Conclusion

The High Court’s ruling in Abdul Hamid v. Union of India clarifies that while pending criminal proceedings constitute a statutory ground for passport refusal, the Government’s exemption Notification (GSR 570(E)) permits issuance upon production of a court‑granted NOC. This balanced approach protects the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 and upholds procedural fairness. Passport authorities and criminal courts must now coordinate to implement this framework, ensuring that bona fide travel needs of accused persons are met without compromising the administration of justice.