The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that the right to hold a passport is an important constitutional right and a citizen is not required to show 'pressing need' in order to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' to go abroad.

The Court was considering a Petition against an order passed by the anti-corruption court whereby the application of the Petitioner for the grant of a 'No Objection Certificate' for obtaining/renewing passport was dismissed.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held, ".....It is a settled law that every citizen has a legal right to hold a passport and that the said right can be taken away only in accordance with law. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978) 15 SCC 248, the Supreme Court held that no person can be deprived of his right to go abroad unless there is a law enabling the State to do so. The right to personal liberty includes the right to travel abroad. For travelling abroad, it is mandatory for a citizen to obtain passport. Thus, right to hold a passport is an important constitutional right of a citizen. Therefore, for obtaining passport or NOC, it is not necessary for a citizen to demonstrate before the court or before the Passport Authority that he has some pressing need for travelling abroad...."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Saqib Shabir, while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate Ilyas Laway.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was facing trial in a case arising out of FIR registered for offences punishable under SectionS 409, 418, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, 7A, 8, 12 and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

During the pendency of the Challan against the Petitioner, he applied for grant of NOC before the Trial Court for obtaining passport for the purpose of undertaking Hajj Pilgrimage. The said Application was considered by the Trial Court and an NOC was issued by the court, whereafter the Petitioner was granted passport for a limited period of one year as the NOC was given by the Trial Court only for one year.

The Petitioner, pursuant to the NOC granted by the Trial Court, obtained passport, the validity of which was restricted to one year, and undertook Hajj Pilgrimage, whereafter he again approached the Trial Court for grant of NOC for obtaining passport for five years.

The said Application was dismissed by the Trial Court, primarily, on the ground that the same was premature because the earlier NOC granted by the said court is valid upto February 2026. Another ground of rejection was that the Petitioner has not produced any documentary proof that would go on to show that he was required to travel abroad in connection with his business.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that both the grounds of rejection appear to be specious as it made reference to Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978).

".......Since a citizen has a right to hold a passport, as such, even without his need for traveling abroad, he is entitled to hold a passport. Thus, the reasoning adopted by the learned trial court that the petitioner has failed to produce the documentary proof with regard to the necessity of his foreign travel, is contrary to the legal position", the Court held.

It thus ruled that since the Petitioner has a right to hold a valid passport, he is also entitled to get his passport renewed for further period because the date of expiry of his passport is approaching.

"Of course, the passport can be issued in favour of the petitioner only in accordance with the rules governing the field and it can even be refused to him if necessary NOC is not issued by the court before which he is facing trial in a criminal offence. However, a criminal court while considering an application for grant of NOC has only to advert itself to the question as to whether the accused, if allowed to travel abroad, would be available to face the trial. No other factor should influence the decision of the criminal court while considering an application for grant of NOC in favour of an accused who intends to obtain a passport/travel document", the Court held.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Zahoor Ahmad Pahalwan v. UT of J&K

Click here to read/ download Order


Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High CourtJustice Sanjay Dhar

Sheetal Joon