Passport Issuance | No Automatic Denial For Pending Criminal Cases : Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has clarified that pending criminal proceedings cannot serve as an automatic ground for rejecting passport applications. In a significant ruling under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court established a structured procedure requiring applicants to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the trial court, balancing individual rights with judicial oversight.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, a 69-year-old businessman from Warangal, applied for passport renewal on 2 January 2026. His application (No. HY8076179384826) was rejected by the Regional Passport Office, Secunderabad, citing a pending criminal case (Crime No. 153/2024) under Sections 447, 427, and 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Geesukonda Police Station, Warangal District.

Procedural History

The petitioner approached the High Court directly through a writ petition under Article 226, seeking:

• A declaration that the rejection was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Passports Act, 1967
• A direction to the respondents to process his application and issue the passport

An interim application (IA No. 1 of 2026) was also filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for urgent relief.

The Parties' Positions

• Petitioner: Argued that the rejection was unjustified as he had no criminal antecedents and had never misused his passport. Cited urgency due to unspecified personal reasons.
• Respondents: Represented by the Deputy Solicitor General, opposed the writ petition, contending that the petitioner should first approach the trial court for an NOC.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the Passport Authority can reject an application solely on the ground of pending criminal proceedings, or whether the applicant must first be afforded an opportunity to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the trial court under the statutory framework of the Passports Act, 1967 and Office Memorandum dated 10 October 2019.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner's counsel relied on the judgment in Thirumani Nagaraju v. The Union of India (W.P.No.31665 of 2025) to argue that:

• The Passports Act, 1967 does not empower the Passport Authority to reject applications solely on the ground of pending criminal cases.
• The Office Memorandum dated 10 October 2019 explicitly states that an NOC from the trial court takes precedence over an adverse police report.
• The petitioner's fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution was being infringed without due process.

For the Respondents

The Deputy Solicitor General contended that:

• The petitioner had bypassed the statutory remedy of approaching the trial court for an NOC.
• The Passports Act, 1967 and the Office Memorandum provide a clear procedure, which the petitioner failed to follow.
• The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the statutory framework and judicial precedents to establish a structured approach to passport issuance during pending criminal proceedings.

"The Notification G.S.R. 570(E) creates a statutory exemption, permitting the issuance or renewal of a passport to such applicants, provided they produce either (i) a No Objection Certificate (NOC) or (ii) an order of permission from the competent court during the pendency of criminal cases."

The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Thirumani Nagaraju to outline the standard procedure:

1. The applicant must file a formal application before the trial court seeking an NOC for passport renewal.
2. The trial court shall notify the prosecution and afford it an opportunity to submit objections.
3. The trial court shall consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the stage of proceedings, the antecedents of the accused, and the likelihood of misuse of the passport before passing a reasoned order.
4. If an NOC is granted, the trial court may impose conditions such as seeking prior leave for travel abroad, furnishing security, or periodic reporting.
5. The discretion of the trial court must be exercised consistent with the presumption of innocence, ensuring that denial of an NOC remains an exception.
6. Upon production of the NOC, the Passport Authority is bound to process the application in accordance with law.

The Court observed that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226. It held that the appropriate course was for the petitioner to approach the trial court for an NOC, rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction directly.

The Verdict

The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

1. The petitioner shall approach the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, and file an application seeking an NOC for passport issuance.
2. The trial court shall consider the application expeditiously, preferably within one week of filing, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
3. Upon furnishing the NOC, the Passport Authority shall process the petitioner's application in accordance with the Passports Act, 1967.
4. The NOC shall not be construed as permission to travel abroad. For international travel, the petitioner must file a separate application before the trial court, specifying the duration and purpose of travel.

No costs were awarded.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Trial Court NOC Is Mandatory Before Invoking Writ Jurisdiction

The judgment reinforces that applicants cannot bypass the statutory remedy of obtaining an NOC from the trial court. Practitioners must:

• Advise clients to first approach the trial court for an NOC before filing writ petitions under Article 226.
• Ensure that applications for NOCs are supported by affidavits detailing the nature of the pending case, the stage of proceedings, and the absence of criminal antecedents.

Passport Authority Cannot Reject Applications Unilaterally

• The Passport Authority is bound by the Office Memorandum dated 10 October 2019 and cannot reject applications solely on the ground of pending criminal cases.
• If an adverse police report is received, the Passport Authority must examine the NOC submitted by the applicant and process the application accordingly.

Conditions For Travel Abroad Must Be Strictly Complied With

• The NOC for passport issuance does not automatically permit international travel. Applicants must file a separate application before the trial court for travel permission.
• The trial court may impose conditions such as:
  • Furnishing security or surety
  • Periodic reporting to the police
  • Restrictions on the duration of travel
  • Undertaking to return to India and attend court proceedings
• Non-compliance with these conditions may result in contempt of court or forfeiture of bail.

Presumption Of Innocence Must Guide Trial Court's Discretion

• The trial court must exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the presumption of innocence under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Denial of an NOC should be an exception, justified only by:
  • The gravity of the offence
  • The likelihood of the accused fleeing justice
  • The stage of proceedings and the need for the accused's presence
• The trial court must pass a reasoned order detailing the grounds for granting or denying the NOC.