Passport renewal for citizens facing criminal proceedings must follow standard ten-year duration unless specifically restricted by court.

The court addressed three writ petitions involving individuals seeking passport renewal/re-issuance while criminal proceedings were pending against them.

Petitioner Sagar Oak (CWP 1788/2025) was denied an NOC by a Trial Court on the ground that court permission is only required for travel, not renewal.

Petitioners in CWP 5554/2025 and 5555/2025 were working abroad but faced delays in renewal because police verification revealed pending cases from 2018 where cognizance had not yet been taken.

The Passport Authority had placed these applications "on hold" pending Court NOCs, citing Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.

1. Whether the Passport Authority can refuse renewal/re-issuance solely due to pending criminal proceedings under Section 6(2)(f) without considering the statutory exemptions under Section 22.

2. Whether a distinction exists between the right to hold a valid passport and the right to travel abroad under Article 21.

3. Whether the mandatory requirement of a Court NOC for every pending criminal case is necessary for mere passport renewal/re-issuance.

The court primarily applied the Passports Act, 1967, specifically Section 6(2)(f) which allows refusal if criminal proceedings are pending, and Section 22, which empowers the Government to grant exemptions.

It relied on GSR 570(E) (1993) and the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 10.10.2019, which exempt applicants from Section 6(2)(f) if they produce a court order.

Precedents included Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887), establishing that Section 6(2)(f) is not an absolute bar, and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, affirming the right to travel as a fundamental right under Article 21.

Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980 was applied regarding the standard 10-year validity of passports.

The court reasoned that the Passport Authority is the sole authority for issuing/renewing passports, while Criminal Courts only regulate travel to ensure the accused’s presence at trial.

It observed that GSR 570(E) and the 2019 OM were intended as relief mechanisms, not rigid barriers.

The court highlighted that under the 2019 OM, mere FIRs or cases where cognizance is not taken do not attract the Section 6(2)(f) bar.

It critiqued the practice of Trial Courts refusing NOCs for renewal, stating that a passport is a "constitutional document of identity" and its renewal does not grant an automatic right to flee the country; travel remains subject to specific court permission.

The court found that requiring a judicial order for every "simplicitor renewal" consumes significant judicial time and that such information (case status/undertakings) can often be handled administratively.

It set aside the orders denying the NOCs and directed the Passport Authority to process the applications for renewal/re-issuance for the standard 10-year period (or 5 years as specifically ordered in CWPs 5554-5555/2025).

The court issued guidelines stating that: (i) Passports should be renewed for 10 years per Rule 12 unless specific reasons exist; (ii) Passport Authorities should not insist on Court orders for simple renewals if an undertaking is filed; and (iii) only "serious" or "heinous" cases should require full judicial scrutiny for NOCs.

In CWP 1788/2025, the court specifically directed the renewal of the passport, noting that travel would still require a separate application to the Trial Court.