The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the pendency of criminal proceedings, including at the investigation stage, cannot by itself justify the rejection of a passport application. The Court directed the Regional Passport Office to consider such applications in accordance with a 1993 Notification, granting applicants an opportunity to obtain court permission within a specified timeframe. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative decisions must not be arbitrary and must provide procedural fairness.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Salman Khan, applied for the renewal/re-issuance of his passport (Passport No. N9085288) through online application No. ARN No.26-2002323555. The Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow (respondent no. 3), neither issued the passport nor passed any order, citing the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner as the ground for non-processing.
Key Facts
The petitioner applied for passport renewal/re-issuance.
The Regional Passport Office (RPO) did not process the application due to a pending criminal case.
No order was passed on the application, leaving the petitioner in limbo.
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the RPO to decide the application expeditiously.
Procedural History
Date of Application: Not specified, but ARN No. 26-2002323555 was filed.
Non-action by RPO: The application remained pending without any order.
Filing of Writ Petition: The petitioner filed Writ-C No. 7185 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
Hearing Date: The matter was heard on the date of judgment (13.07.2026).
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for:
A writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 3 to renew/re-issue the passport.
Expeditious disposal of the pending application within a timeframe specified by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the pendency of criminal proceedings, including at the investigation stage, can justify the rejection or non-processing of a passport application without affording the applicant an opportunity to obtain court permission, as mandated by the Notification dated 25.08.1993.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Relied on the judgment in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India and others (Writ-C No. 41540 of 2023), which held that pendency of criminal proceedings does not justify rejection of a passport application.
Argued that the RPO failed to follow the procedure laid down in the 1993 Notification, which requires intimation to the applicant within one week and granting of eight weeks to obtain court permission.
Cited Harshit Vaish v. State of U.P. and another (Criminal Revision No. 524 of 2026), which observed that while no separate No Objection Certificate (NOC) is required, an order from the competent court permitting travel abroad is necessary.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel did not present specific counter-arguments in the judgment text, but the RPO’s stance appeared to be that the pendency of a criminal case justified non-action on the passport application.
The Court's Analysis
The Court relied on two key precedents to establish the legal framework for passport issuance in cases involving pending criminal proceedings:
In Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India and others, the Court held that the pendency of criminal proceedings, even at the investigation stage, does not justify the rejection of a passport application. The RPO must consider the application in terms of the Notification dated 25.08.1993, which prescribes a specific procedure:
The RPO must intimate the applicant about the pendency of criminal proceedings within one week.
The applicant must be granted not less than eight weeks to obtain permission from the competent court.
During this period, the application may be kept pending.
Upon submission of the court’s permission, the passport must be processed expeditiously and without undue delay, preferably within one week.
In Harshit Vaish v. State of U.P. and another, the Court took note of the Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. The memorandum clarifies that:
No separate NOC is required for passport issuance.
However, an order from the competent court permitting the applicant to travel abroad is necessary.
The trial court may grant or refuse permission and impose conditions, including the period of travel.
If no period is specified, the passport may be issued in terms of GSR 570(E), ordinarily for a period not exceeding one year.
The Court observed that since the decision regarding passport issuance rests with the RPO, the petitioner must be afforded an opportunity to file a representation. The RPO was directed to consider and decide the application in light of the aforementioned judgments.
"The trial court may grant or refuse permission and impose conditions, including the period of travel. If no period is specified, the passport may be issued in terms of GSR 570(E), ordinarily for a period not exceeding one year."
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
The petitioner was permitted to file a representation before respondent no. 3 (RPO) within one month from the date of the judgment (13.07.2026).
Upon filing the representation, the RPO was directed to consider and decide the application for passport issuance in accordance with the judgments in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar and Harshit Vaish within three months from the date of receipt of the representation.
The Court did not grant any immediate relief but ensured that the petitioner’s application would be processed in a time-bound manner, adhering to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pendency of Criminal Proceedings Cannot Justify Arbitrary Rejection
The judgment reinforces that the pendency of criminal proceedings, even at the investigation stage, cannot be a ground for automatic rejection or non-processing of a passport application.
The RPO must follow the procedure prescribed in the Notification dated 25.08.1993, which includes:
Intimating the applicant within one week about the pendency of criminal proceedings.
Granting the applicant not less than eight weeks to obtain court permission.
Processing the passport expeditiously upon submission of the court’s order.
Court Permission Is Mandatory, But No Separate NOC Required
While the RPO cannot reject an application solely on the ground of pending criminal proceedings, the applicant must obtain permission from the competent court to travel abroad.
The Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2024 clarifies that no separate NOC is required, but the court’s order is essential.
The trial court has the discretion to:
Grant or refuse permission.
Impose conditions, including the period of travel.
If no period is specified, the passport may be issued for up to one year under GSR 570(E).
Timelines for Compliance Ensure Procedural Fairness
The judgment sets clear timelines for compliance, ensuring that applicants are not left in limbo:
The RPO must decide the application within three months of receiving the representation.
This direction prevents undue delay and ensures accountability in administrative decision-making.
Practitioners can rely on this judgment to argue for time-bound processing of passport applications where criminal proceedings are pending.
