The Passport Authority's discretion in issuing passports is contingent upon the existence of court permissions when criminal charges are pending.

JUDGMENT

The prayers in this Original Petition filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:- “i. To call for the records reading to Exhibit P3 and quash the same, ii. To direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent to process and issue the petitioner’s passport from the Passport Office, Aluva, without insisting on any “no objection certificate”, “court permission”, or exemption under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act, 1967 .

iii. Direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent to issue the passport for a period of 10 years, as applicable to an ordinary adult passport applicant.

iv. Dispense with the filing of the English translation of the vernacular documents, as the petitioner undertakes to produce the same as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court; and i. Grant such other and further reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India.

3. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.453 of 2025 of Cheranellor Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences punishable underSections 22(c) and 29 of theNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(for short ‘the NDPS Act’). The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.5238 of 2025 before the Additional Sessions Court – I, Ernakulam seeking ‘No Objection Certificate’ to apply for fresh passport. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the petitioner to apply for fresh passport on the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the trial court.

2. New passport must be submitted before the court, when he receives it.

4. The petitioner applied for passport before the Passport Authority, which rejected the application on the ground that permission from the Court to leave India was required.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Thadevoose Sebastian v. Regional Passport Office and Another ( 2021 (5) KHC 625 ) and Raju Kattakayam v. State of Kerala ( 2025 KLT OnLine 2125 ) submitted that mere registration of a crime does not invoke either Section 6 or Section 10 of the Passport Act and that the Passport Authority can decide on the issue of passport without permission from the Court, if the final report has not been filed and the Jurisdictional Court has not taken cognizance of the offence.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Police submitted final report in the matter and the Jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of the offences alleged.

7. As per Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country on the ground that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal Court in India. As per notification dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, the Government of India has exempted citizens of India, against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them are pending before a criminal Court in India, who produce orders from the Court concerned permitting them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967.

8. The learned DSGI submitted that, as the Police have submitted the final report and the Jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of the offences alleged, the Passport Authority can issue passport only if the petitioner produces permission from the Court concerned to depart from India.

Therefore, the Origi