The Telangana High Court has clarified that the mere pendency of a criminal case does not justify automatic denial of passport reissuance under the Passports Act, 1967. While recognizing the statutory framework governing passport issuance, the Court emphasized that procedural compliance - specifically obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the trial court - is the lawful pathway, not blanket refusal. This ruling reinforces the constitutional right to travel as part of personal liberty under Article 21, while balancing it with judicial oversight in pending criminal matters.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Raghavender Siva Vijaya Chivukula, a research scientist employed at Innovation Biotherapeutics in Tampa, Florida, USA, sought reissuance of his passport after losing his existing one in Hyderabad on 19.07.2025. His application, filed on 25.07.2025 under File No. HY1075444582825, was rejected by the Regional Passport Office on 25.08.2025 on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered as Crime No. 285 of 2025 before the III Additional Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was issued Passport No. G-5374369 on 16.10.2007, valid until 15.10.2017
- He renewed his passport as No. R0895621 on 01.11.2017 in San Francisco, valid until 31.10.2027
- He married Smt. Nagasarvari Garikapati on 04.02.2022, while she was pursuing her PhD at IIT Madras
- She joined him in the USA on 23.04.2025
- The couple returned to India on 28.06.2025 for her convocation, with planned return to the USA on 27.07.2025
- The petitioner lost his bag containing his passport on 19.07.2025 near Bowenpally, Secunderabad
- A police complaint was lodged on 19.07.2025; a certificate of non-recovery was issued on 21.07.2025
- He applied for reissuance on 25.07.2025
- The Regional Passport Office received an adverse police report dated 18.08.2025 regarding the pending FIR
- An objection letter dated 19.08.2025 was issued to the petitioner
- The petitioner submitted a written reply on 21.08.2025
- The charge sheet in Crime No. 285/2025 had been filed but was yet to be numbered
- The petitioner’s wife filed a legal notice dated 12.08.2025 seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- The petitioner holds an H-1B visa tied to his employment in the USA
- He is required to resume onsite work by 23.03.2026 or face termination and potential legal action for breach of confidentiality
- His parents, aged 78 and 73, suffer from serious health conditions requiring his care
Procedural History
- 19.07.2025: Loss of passport reported to Bowenpally Police Station
- 21.07.2025: Police issued certificate of non-recovery
- 25.07.2025: Passport reissuance application filed (File No. HY1075444582825)
- 11.08.2025: Respondent No. 3 (wife) personally approached Passport Office with complaint
- 18.08.2025: Police submitted adverse verification report
- 19.08.2025: Objection letter issued by Passport Office
- 21.08.2025: Petitioner submitted reply to objection
- 25.08.2025: Passport reissuance formally refused
- 05.09.2025: Writ Petition No. 25543 of 2025 filed before Telangana High Court
- 11.09.2025: Respondent No. 3 impleaded as per Court order
- 09.03.2026: Petitioner filed Affidavit of Undertaking before the Court
- 17.02.2026: Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 194 of 2026 delivered, setting precedent
- 18.03.2026: Judgment delivered in present writ petition
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that the criminal case is false and motivated, filed to prevent his return to the USA. He denied suppressing facts, claiming ignorance of the FIR until late July 2025. He emphasized his professional obligations, family responsibilities, and willingness to cooperate with the trial court.
Respondents 1 & 2 (Union of India & Passport Office): Contended that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, read with Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, mandates refusal of passport issuance when criminal proceedings are pending. They asserted that the petitioner failed to disclose the pending case and did not obtain an NOC from the trial court.
Respondent No. 3 (Wife): Alleged that the passport loss was fabricated to facilitate desertion. She claimed the petitioner had knowledge of the FIR, suppressed material facts, and was attempting to evade legal proceedings. She argued that granting a passport would enable him to flee the country.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the refusal order dated 25.08.2025
- Direction to the Passport Authority to reissue his passport for a full period of ten years
- Immediate issuance within one week due to urgent professional obligations
The Legal Issue
Can the Passport Authority refuse reissuance of a passport solely on the ground of pending criminal proceedings, without requiring the applicant to first obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the trial court, and does such refusal violate the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on multiple precedents including Soniya Sawhney v. Regional Passport Officer, Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India, and Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, to argue that the right to hold a passport and travel abroad is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21. He emphasized that the Passports Act does not mandate automatic denial upon filing of an FIR; rather, the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 requires the applicant to seek an NOC from the trial court. He submitted an Affidavit of Undertaking, promising to appear before the criminal court every three months and to comply with all court directions. He argued that professional hardship and family obligations constitute compelling grounds for expeditious consideration.
For the Respondent
The Standing Counsel for the Union contended that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, permits refusal when criminal proceedings are pending. Citing the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 829 of 2024 and the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, she argued that the petitioner’s failure to disclose the pending case and to obtain an NOC rendered his application defective. She maintained that the passport authority acted lawfully and that professional urgency cannot override statutory compliance. The counsel for Respondent No. 3 echoed these arguments, adding that the petitioner’s conduct was mala fide and that granting a passport would prejudice the criminal trial.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by acknowledging the constitutional dimension of the right to travel abroad, which has been consistently recognized as part of personal liberty under Article 21. However, it also affirmed that this right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which permits refusal when criminal proceedings are pending.
The Court then turned to the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 and GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, which provide the operational framework for passport issuance in cases involving pending criminal cases. The Court emphasized that these guidelines do not authorize automatic refusal but require the applicant to approach the trial court for a No Objection Certificate (NOC). The Court cited its own Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 194 of 2026, delivered on 17.02.2026, which held:
"The appellant should make an application for seeking NOC from the concerned trial courts where criminal cases are pending against him. It is upon issuance of NOC that the appellant should file an application for renewal of the passport. In case the courts prescribe a period for which the passport is to be issued, the passport authority should honour that period. Otherwise, if it does not stipulate any period, the notification provides default rules, including issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate cases."
The Court noted that the charge sheet in Crime No. 285/2025 had been filed, confirming that criminal proceedings were indeed pending. The petitioner’s failure to disclose this fact in his application, even if unintentional, did not absolve him of the procedural requirement to seek an NOC. However, the Court also recognized the petitioner’s Affidavit of Undertaking, wherein he unconditionally pledged to appear before the trial court every three months and to comply with all judicial directions.
The Court further observed that the wife’s simultaneous pursuit of criminal charges and a petition for restitution of conjugal rights raised serious questions about the bona fides of the proceedings, but declined to adjudicate the merits of the matrimonial dispute, noting that such issues were beyond the scope of a writ petition concerning passport issuance.
The Court concluded that while the Passport Authority acted within its statutory mandate in raising an objection, the remedy lay not in outright denial but in directing the petitioner to seek an NOC from the trial court. The Court balanced the petitioner’s urgent professional needs with the state’s interest in ensuring judicial process, and therefore granted liberty to approach the trial court with the undertaking.
The Verdict
The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is granted liberty to immediately approach the III Additional Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy, and file an application seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for reissuance of his passport for a period of ten years, accompanied by the Affidavit of Undertaking dated 09.03.2026. The trial court shall consider the application expeditiously, preferably on the same day. Upon receipt of the NOC, the Regional Passport Office shall process the passport application in accordance with the Passports Act, 1967, and the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019. The NOC shall not be construed as permission to travel abroad; any request for travel must be separately applied for before the trial court, which shall impose conditions as necessary to ensure the petitioner’s presence during trial proceedings. No costs are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
NOC Is Mandatory, Not Optional
- Practitioners must advise clients with pending criminal cases to file for an NOC from the trial court before applying for passport renewal
- Passport authorities cannot deny applications solely on the basis of an FIR or charge sheet; the absence of an NOC is the lawful ground for refusal
- Applications must include the Affidavit of Undertaking as evidence of willingness to cooperate with the court
Travel Permission Requires Separate Judicial Scrutiny
- An NOC for passport issuance is distinct from permission to travel abroad
- Clients seeking international travel during pendency of criminal proceedings must file a separate application before the trial court
- Courts may impose conditions such as surrender of passport, periodic appearance, or bail-like obligations
Constitutional Rights Cannot Be Overridden by Administrative Inertia
-
The right to travel under Article 21 is protected even during criminal proceedings
-
Administrative refusal without procedural compliance (i.e., NOC) is arbitrary and violates due process
-
Courts will intervene where authorities act mechanically without applying the statutory framework
-
Practitioners should file Affidavits of Undertaking in all such writ petitions to demonstrate good faith and willingness to comply
-
The judgment reinforces that statutory guidelines must be followed, not bypassed, and that judicial discretion, not bureaucratic policy, governs the outcome
