The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that the mere pendency of criminal proceedings against a passport applicant cannot justify refusal to issue or renew a passport, provided the applicant undertakes not to travel abroad without court permission. This ruling reinforces the constitutional right to travel as an essential facet of personal liberty under Article 21, and curbs arbitrary administrative discretion under the Passports Act, 1967.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bantrotu Murali, a 25-year-old software employee from Chittoor District, applied for a new 10-year passport on 16.08.2025 under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, 1980. The second respondent, the Regional Passport Officer, Vijayawada, placed the application on "hold" status, citing the need for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the High Court due to pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Key Facts
- The petitioner submitted a complete application with all required documents on 16.08.2025 (Application No. VJ1065680431725)
- The passport authority did not raise any deficiency in documentation or provide reasons beyond the requirement of an NOC
- The petitioner is not under arrest or subject to travel ban by any court
- No court has issued a specific order prohibiting the petitioner from obtaining a passport
- The pending criminal proceedings are unrelated to national security, terrorism, or extradition matters
Procedural History
- 16.08.2025: Petitioner submitted passport application to Regional Passport Office, Vijayawada
- Late 2025 - Early 2026: Application remained on "hold" without formal rejection or communication
- 07.04.2026: Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a common order in W.P.No.5769 of 2026 and batch, establishing binding principles on passport issuance during pending criminal cases
- 08.04.2026: Petitioner filed W.P.No.9078/2026 seeking mandamus to direct issuance of passport
- 08.04.2026: Court heard arguments and disposed of the petition on the basis of the earlier common order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A declaration that the refusal to issue the passport without an NOC was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution
- A writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue the passport for a period of ten years under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, 1980
- An order under Section 151 CPC for expeditious processing of the application
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether passport authorities can lawfully withhold issuance or renewal of a passport solely on account of pending criminal proceedings, absent a specific court order prohibiting travel, and whether requiring a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from a High Court constitutes an unlawful condition under the Passports Act, 1967 and Passports Rules, 1980.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that:
- The Passports Act, 1967 and Passports Rules, 1980 do not empower passport authorities to demand an NOC from courts for pending criminal cases
- The right to travel abroad is an integral part of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), as affirmed in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
- The requirement of an NOC is an extra-statutory condition, arbitrary, and violates Article 14 (equality before law)
- The petitioner has not been prohibited from leaving the country by any court, nor is he a flight risk
- The common order dated 07.04.2026 in W.P.No.5769 of 2026 already settled this issue in favor of applicants
For the Respondent
The respondent did not file a written counter-affidavit. The learned counsel for the Union of India and the Regional Passport Officer conceded before the Court that the matter was squarely covered by the common order dated 07.04.2026 and did not oppose the petition.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the Passports Act, 1967 is a self-contained code governing issuance, refusal, and cancellation of passports. Under Section 10, passports may be issued for a period not exceeding ten years, subject to conditions prescribed by the rules. Rule 12 permits issuance of passports for ten years, provided the applicant is not subject to any statutory bar.
The Court emphasized that the Passports Rules, 1980 do not contain any provision requiring a No Objection Certificate from a court in cases of pending criminal proceedings. The requirement of an NOC, therefore, is an unauthorized condition imposed by administrative practice, not law.
"The right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21, and cannot be denied merely because criminal proceedings are pending. The State may impose reasonable conditions, but not create new statutory barriers."
The Court relied on its own earlier order dated 07.04.2026 in W.P.No.5769 of 2026, which had laid down a balanced framework: passport issuance must proceed, but subject to the applicant’s undertaking not to travel abroad without court permission, and submission of a certified copy of such undertaking to the Passport Officer.
The Court held that this framework strikes the correct balance between the individual’s fundamental right and the State’s legitimate interest in ensuring cooperation with ongoing criminal proceedings. The petitioner’s application was therefore eligible for processing under the same terms.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Regional Passport Officer, to issue the petitioner’s passport for a period of ten years under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 and Rule 12 of the Passports Rules, 1980, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioner shall submit an undertaking and affidavit affirming he will not leave India during the pendency of criminal proceedings without prior permission of the trial court
- The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of the undertaking from the concerned trial court within two weeks
- The petitioner shall submit the certified copy to the Passport Officer before issuance of the passport
- The Passport Officer shall process the application and issue the passport within two weeks of receiving the certified undertaking
- On renewal, the petitioner shall deposit the original renewed passport with the trial court
- The petitioner shall seek prior permission from the trial court for any foreign travel
There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Passport Authorities Cannot Impose Extra-Statutory Conditions
- Practitioners must challenge any refusal based on NOC requirements, as such conditions have no basis in the Passports Act or Rules
- Administrative circulars or internal guidelines demanding court NOCs are ultra vires and void
- Applicants should file writ petitions immediately upon unjustified delay or refusal, citing Maneka Gandhi and this judgment
Undertaking Framework Is Now Binding Precedent
- The Andhra Pradesh HC has established a uniform procedure for passport issuance during pending criminal cases
- The three-step process - undertaking, certified copy, submission to Passport Officer - is now the legally recognized pathway
- This applies to all pending criminal cases, regardless of nature, unless the court has issued a specific travel ban
Right to Travel Is Not Suspended by Pending Charges
- Mere pendency of a criminal case does not equate to flight risk or public interest threat
- The burden is on the State to prove actual risk, not on the applicant to prove innocence
- This judgment reinforces that procedural fairness under Article 21 overrides bureaucratic inertia
