Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L. Victoria Gowri, J
Muthuramalingam – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.RC.(MD).No.440 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Vishnu
For the Respondents: S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor

The pendency of criminal proceedings does not create an absolute bar to the renewal or reissuance of a passport; however, any actual travel abroad remains subject to specific judicial permission from the trial court, balancing statutory rights with the integrity of the ongoing criminal trial.

Headnote:(A) Passports Act, 1967 - Section 6(2)(f) - Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 - Passport renewal for person facing criminal proceedings - Whether absolute bar exists - Held, no absolute bar to renewal or reissuance of passport while criminal case is pending, provided appropriate judicial permission is obtained; restrictions under S. 6(2)(f) are subject to relaxation under notification; trial court's denial based on lack of enabling provision and 'tourism' as purpose held unsustainable. (Paras 28-32, 44)

(B) Practice and Procedure - Passport renewal vs. Permission to travel - Distinction between granting 'No Objection' for passport renewal and actual permission to leave country - Held, renewal of passport does not grant automatic right to travel abroad; trial court retains power to regulate foreign travel by imposing conditions on a case-by-case basis. (Paras 41-43, 45)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is the first accused in a session case facing trial for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He filed an application before the trial court seeking a ‘No Objection Certificate’ for the renewal/reissuance of his passport to facilitate foreign travel for tourism. The trial court rejected this request, citing the serious nature of the pending case and the lack of statutory provisions for such relief. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging this order.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the pendency of criminal proceedings does not create an absolute bar for passport renewal. The trial court's reasoning regarding the absence of statutory provisions was found incorrect, as the framework under the Passports Act read with G.S.R. 570(E) allows for judicial permission. The court further clarified that while the passport may be renewed, the petitioner must seek specific court permission before every trip abroad.

Issues: Whether the pendency of a sessions case acts as an absolute bar to passport renewal and whether the trial court erred in denying the request based on the purpose of travel being tourism.

Ratio Decidendi: Passport issuance is a travel documentation matter distinct from the criminal court's control over the movement of an accused; therefore, passport renewal can be permitted while maintaining judicial oversight on actual departure from the country to ensure effective prosecution.

Result: Revision allowed; the impugned order was modified to permit the application for passport renewal.

Table of Content
1. background and procedural history of the passport challenge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments regarding the right to passport renewal during trial. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. legal interpretation of passport restrictions under the passports act. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
4. directives on passport renewal and requirement for trial court permission for travel. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)

Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023 , to call for the records pertaining to the order made in Crl.M.P. No. 155 of 2026 in S.C. No. 42 of 2022 dated 07.02.2026 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai and to set aside the same.

ORDER

Preface:

1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 07.02.2026 passed in Criminal M.P. No.155 of 2026 in S.C. No.42 of 2022 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, whereby the petition filed by the revision petitioner seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate for passport purposes came to be dismissed.

2. The controversy raised in the present revision lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner, who is arrayed as the first accused in a sessions case for a grave offence, sought permission in the nature of a No Objection Certificate in connection with renewal/reissuance of passport. The learned trial Judge, taking note of the pendency of the sessions case, the nature of the offence, and the avowed purpose of foreign travel being tourism, declined the relief. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction.

Case of the Prosecution / Background Facts:

3. The petitioner is the first accused in S.C. No.42 of 2022 pending on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court, Madurai. The said case is one relating to the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned trial Court seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate to facilitate the issuance/renewal of passport, so as to enable him to travel abroad for tourism purposes.

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his earlier passport had expired and, therefore, he had already moved the jurisdictional Passport Officer for renewal/reissuance of the same. Since no favourable orders were forthcoming from the Passport Authority, the petitioner approached this Court earlier in W.P.(MD) No.28343 of 2025 seeking a direction to the Regional Passport Officer, Madurai, to reissue his passport.

6. This Court, in the said writ proceedings, directed the petitioner to approach the concerned trial Court seeking appropriate permission/no objection for travelling abroad. This Court also directed the learned trial Court to dispose of such application within a period of four weeks, and further observed that the Passport Authority shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law based upon the order of the criminal Court.

7. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner filed Criminal M.P. No.155 of 2026 in S.C. No.42 of 2022 before the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

8. The learned trial Court, by the impugned order dated 07.02.2026, dismissed the said petition. The learned Judge observed that the petitioner had not produced any specific statutory provision enabling the criminal Court to issue a No Objection Certificate for passport issuance or renewal. The learned Judge further observed that the petitioner sought such relief only for tourism purposes and that the same could not be treated as an essential necessity. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is the first accused in a pending murder trial, the learned Judge expressed apprehension that if the petitioner failed to return from abroad, prejudice woul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASL. Victoria Gowri, JMuthuramalingam – AppellantVersusState – RespondentCrl.RC.(MD).No.440 of 2026

The pendency of criminal proceedings does not create an absolute bar to the renewal or reissuance of a passport; however, any actual travel abroad remains subject to specific judicial permission from the trial court, balancing statutory rights with the integrity of the ongoing criminal trial.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L. Victoria Gowri, J
Muthuramalingam – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.RC.(MD).No.440 of 2026