The Bombay High Court has said that a pending criminal case, on its own, is not enough to refuse renewal of a passport. In its order of April 29, 2026, the court noted that, except where serious offences are involved, passports can generally be renewed for the usual ten-year period even if such cases are still ongoing.
A bench of justices Ajey Gadkari and RR Bhonsale also took note of the “unnecessary delay and inconvenience” caused when applicants are required to obtain a No Objection Certificate from criminal courts, even where summons have not been issued or cognisance has not been taken. The judges observed that this practice adds to delays and places an avoidable burden on the judiciary.
Liberty Not A Concession
Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the bench said the state is bound to respect personal liberty and cannot treat it as a matter of choice. It also warned that procedural safeguards should not be enforced in a manner that turns them into “rigid barriers”.
“The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the court noted.
What To Know
Distinct rights: The court drew a clear line between holding a passport and the act of travelling, noting that possession of a passport stands on a different footing as a right.
Reduced delays: It sought to curb routine delays caused by insisting on No Objection Certificates, particularly where a case is only pending and has not progressed to trial, thereby easing the load on courts.
Exceptions: Cases involving serious or heinous offences, financial fraud, or offences against the State would still require specific permission from the court.
Procedural change: The ruling looks to simplify the process for those facing pending cases, provided there is no express order restricting them.
The judgment reiterates that the mere existence of a pending criminal case is not, by itself, enough to deny renewal of a passport, in line with earlier decisions on the issue.
What The Law Says
The court set out the scheme of the Passports Act, 1967, noting that it is meant “to provide for the issue of passports and travel documents, to regulate departure from India of citizens and other persons, and for matters incidental or ancillary thereto.” It made clear that decisions on issuing or refusing passports rest with the passport authorities and can be taken only on limited, specified grounds.
Referring to the statutory framework, the bench pointed out that “the passport authority shall, after making such enquiry as it considers necessary, either issue a passport or refuse to issue it only on the specific grounds mentioned in section 6.” It also noted Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, which provides that “an ordinary passport for a person above 15 years is normally to be valid for ten years from the date of issue and renewal is to be granted in such ten-year blocks unless the applicant desires otherwise or the authority records reasons for a shorter period.”
(With inputs from various sources)
FAQs
Does a pending criminal case automatically stop passport renewal?
No. The court has clarified that a pending criminal case alone is not enough to deny renewal of a passport.
What did the Bombay High Court say about passport renewals?
It held that, except in serious offences, passports should generally be renewed for the standard ten-year period even if cases are pending.
Is a No Objection Certificate (NOC) always required?
No. The court criticised the routine insistence on NOCs, especially where summons have not been issued or cognisance has not been taken.
Are there any exceptions to this ruling?
Yes. Cases involving serious or heinous offences, financial fraud, or offences against the State may still require specific judicial permission.
What is the key takeaway from this judgment?
The court reaffirmed that pending criminal proceedings, by themselves, cannot be used to deny a citizen the renewal of a passport.
