Pendency of criminal proceedings alone cannot justify refusal of passport permission under Notification GSR 570(E).

The petitioner, a businessman and permanent resident of Seoni, sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for obtaining a passport under Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 20 August 1993, issued in the context of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.

He was facing proceedings in Sessions Trial Nos. 196/2015, 197/2015 and 26/2024 before the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Seoni.

Although the Judicial Magistrate had granted him permission and issued an NOC in another criminal case arising from Crime No. 1319/2025, the Special Judge rejected his applications by a common order dated 16 March 2026.

The petitioner contended that two of the pending trials arose from 2015 incidents, that four connected trials had ended in his acquittal, that the delay was not attributable to him, and that proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 26/2024 had been stayed by the High Court.

He therefore challenged the rejection under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Special Judge acted illegally or with material non-application of mind in rejecting the petitioner’s applications for an NOC merely because criminal proceedings were pending against him.

Whether, while considering permission for issuance of a passport under Notification G.S.R. 570(E), the court was required to consider the nature of the allegations, the petitioner’s conduct, likelihood of absconding, stage and duration of the trials, necessity of travel and other attending circumstances.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the requisite NOC for obtaining a passport, subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the trial court.

The Court applied Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, read with Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 20 August 1993, as revised on 10 October 2019, under which pendency of criminal proceedings is not an absolute bar to issuance of a passport where the concerned criminal court grants permission.

The court must exercise judicial discretion after considering the nature of the accusations, conduct of the accused, likelihood of absconding, stage and duration of the proceedings, purpose and duration of travel, and other relevant circumstances.

The Court also considered the applicant’s constitutional right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution and relied on Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Another , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 288 [judgment also records 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887], which requires a balanced approach protecting both the administration of criminal justice and the applicant’s constitutional rights.

The High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct the failure of the Special Judge to exercise the statutory discretion in accordance with law.

The High Court found that the petitioner had permanent residence, immovable properties, business and hospital interests in Seoni, was an income-tax assessee, and had no material against him suggesting a likelihood of absconding.

It further noted that a competent Magistrate had already granted him an NOC in another criminal case, four connected trials had ended in acquittal, the two remaining 2015 trials had been pending for nearly a decade without delay attributable to the petitioner, and proceedings in Trial No. 26/2024 had been stayed by the High Court.

The Special Judge’s order did not assess any of these circumstances and proceeded solely on the fact of pending criminal cases.

Such automatic rejection defeated the purpose of Notification G.S.R. 570(E), which required an individualized judicial assessment rather than treating pendency as an absolute prohibition.

The High Court therefore held that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind and failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law.

The common order dated 16 March 2026 passed by the Special Judge in Sessions Trial Nos. 196/2015, 197/2015 and 26/2024 was set aside.

For purposes of Notification G.S.R. 570(E), read with Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, the petitioner was held entitled to the requisite NOC for obtaining a passport.

The concerned trial court was directed to issue the NOC within seven days of production of the certified copy of the High Court’s order, while retaining liberty to impose reasonable conditions.