Pending criminal proceedings do not bar passport renewal upon judicial NOC.

The petitioner was facing trial for offences under Sections 341, 363, 392 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 414/2023 registered at Police Station Pawai, District Panna.

He had been granted bail by the High Court in M.Cr.C. No. 33779/2025.

As his passport was due to expire, he applied for renewal, but the Passport Authority required him to submit an order or No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the competent court within 60 days of its notice dated 24.07.2026.

The petitioner therefore applied before the Trial Court for an NOC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, rejected the application on the ground that bail had been granted by the High Court and that the Trial Court was not competent to issue the requisite permission.

Whether the Trial Court was competent to issue an NOC permitting renewal of the petitioner’s passport despite the petitioner having been granted bail by the High Court

Whether pendency of criminal proceedings and the requirement of permission to depart from India under the applicable passport regulations constitute an absolute bar to renewal of the petitioner’s passport

Whether the petitioner could be granted an NOC for passport renewal subject to obtaining prior permission before travelling abroad

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, a passport authority may refuse issuance of a passport where criminal proceedings are pending before a criminal court; however, the notification dated 25.08.1993, GSR 570(E), issued under Section 22 of the Act, exempts such applicants where they produce an order of the concerned court permitting departure from India, subject to prescribed conditions regarding passport validity, renewal and an undertaking to appear before the court.

The Court also considered Sections 5(2) and 7 of the Passports Act and Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, together with the Ministry of External Affairs Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, which directs Passport Authorities to process such applications in accordance with GSR 570(E) and recognises the relevance of a court-issued NOC.

Relying on Mahesh Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1238, the Court held that pendency of a criminal case is not an absolute bar to passport renewal where the criminal court grants permission or an NOC; the requirement of permission to depart from India does not require an immediate or concrete travel plan, and renewal may be permitted while the court retains control over future foreign travel.

The Trial Court wrongly treated the High Court’s earlier bail order as excluding its competence to consider the petitioner’s request for passport renewal.

The applicable passport framework required a court order or NOC because criminal proceedings were pending, but it did not make passport renewal an absolute impossibility.

The petitioner expressly stated that he had no present intention to travel abroad and undertook to obtain prior permission if he later decided to do so.

Applying the principle that restrictions affecting the right to travel under Article 21 must be necessary and proportionate, the Court held that renewal could be allowed while preserving judicial control over any future foreign travel.

It directed the Trial Court to issue an NOC to the petitioner for the limited purpose of renewing his passport.

The petitioner was directed to obtain prior permission from the High Court before travelling outside India, and such permission would remain subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.