Facts
The Petitioners, Indian citizens facing pending criminal proceedings, sought the renewal/re-issuance of their passports for 10 years.
Source reference: no citationIn 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.
Source reference: para. 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.
Source reference: para. 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.
Source reference: para. 5.1Issues
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.
Source reference: paras. 2, 29, 312. 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.
Source reference: paras. 24, 33Law Applied
Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which allows refusal of a passport if criminal proceedings are pending.
Source reference: para. 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.
Source reference: paras. 18, 20Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, prescribing a standard 10-year validity.
Source reference: para. 19Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India regarding the right to travel as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Source reference: para. 45.2Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2025), distinguishing between the possession of a valid passport and the act of traveling abroad.
Source reference: para. 22.9Reasoning
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.
Source reference: paras. 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).
Source reference: para. 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.
Source reference: paras. 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".
Source reference: paras. 2, 33Holding
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.
However, if the court specifies a duration, the Authority must follow it; otherwise, Rule 12 (10 years) applies.
Source reference: para. 47(i)In WP 1788/2025, the Trial Court's order was set aside and the Authority was directed to process the renewal.
Source reference: Order p. 55In WP 5554 5555/2025, the Court directed renewal for 10 years.
Source reference: 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.
Source reference: para. 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