01Facts
The Petitioners, Indian citizens facing pending criminal proceedings, sought the renewal/re-issuance of their passports for 10 years.
In WP 1788/2025, the Trial Court rejected a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for renewal, erroneously stating it was not required unless the applicant was traveling.
¶ 5.1In WP 5554 5555/2025, the Trial Court failed to pass orders on renewal applications despite the matters remaining at the pre-cognizance stage since 2018.
¶ 6.4-6.7The Passport Authorities had placed the applications "on hold" pending Court NOCs pursuant to Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act.
¶ 5.102Issues
i.1. Whether the Passport Authority can refuse or restrict the duration of a passport renewal solely due to the pendency of a criminal case where cognizance has not been taken or travel is not immediately intended.
¶ 2, 29, 31ii.2. Whether a judicial order/NOC is a mandatory prerequisite for the "simplicitor renewal" of a passport under the statutory scheme of the Passports Act and relevant notifications.
¶ 24, 3303Law Applied
Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which allows refusal of a passport if criminal proceedings are pending.
¶ 11Section 22 (power to exempt) and Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, which exempts applicants from Section 6(2)(f) if they obtain a court order.
¶ 18, 20Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, prescribing a standard 10-year validity.
¶ 19Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India regarding the right to travel as a fundamental right under Article 21.
¶ 45.2Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2025), distinguishing between the possession of a valid passport and the act of traveling abroad.
¶ 22.9Provisions in the judgment · 17 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Passports Act, 1967 10 provisions
Section 4Section 5Section 6Section 7Section 8Section 9Section 10Section 12Section 19Section 22Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 34Section 403Section 405Section 406Section 420Section 465Section 467
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the power to issue, renew, or revoke passports vests exclusively with the Passport Authority, while the Criminal Court’s role is limited to ensuring the accused's presence for trial.
¶ 26, 30It observed that the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 10.10.2019 clarifies that "pending proceedings" only exist once a court takes cognizance; thus, mere FIRs do not trigger the bar under Section 6(2)(f).
¶ 32The Court emphasized that a passport is a civil identity document, and its renewal does not grant an automatic right to travel, which remains subject to Trial Court supervision and bail conditions.
¶ 34, 37The Court found the existing practice of requiring judicial NOCs for every minor or pre-cognizance case to be an "unnecessary barrier" that consumes judicial time and lacks a statutory basis for "simplicitor renewal".
¶ 2, 3305Holding
The Court held that for "simplicitor renewal," the Passport Authority should not insist on a court NOC if the applicant has filed an undertaking/affidavit under the OM.
¶ 47(ii)However, if the court specifies a duration, the Authority must follow it; otherwise, Rule 12 (10 years) applies.
¶ 47(i)In WP 1788/2025, the Trial Court's order was set aside and the Authority was directed to process the renewal.
Order p. 55In WP 5554 5555/2025, the Court directed renewal for 10 years.
Order p. 56The Court issued comprehensive guidelines [para. 47] to streamline NOC issuance, prioritizing administrative certificates for routine cases and judicial hearings only for serious/heinous offences.
¶ 47(vii)Original Court PDF
Brahma Sheo Bharat MallvsThe State Of Maharashtra
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
