Right to Hold Passport is a Constitutional Right, Proving 'Need to Travel' Not Required for NOC: J&K High Court

Srinagar, J&K – The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, in a significant ruling, has set aside a trial court's order that denied a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for passport renewal to an accused in a corruption case. Justice Sanjay Dhar emphasized that the right to hold a passport is a fundamental constitutional right, and a criminal court's primary concern when considering an NOC application is to ensure the accused's availability for trial, not to scrutinize their reasons for travelling abroad.

The court quashed the order of the Special Judge, Anticorruption, Anantnag, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, terming the lower court's reasoning as "specious."

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Zahoor Ahmad Pahalwan, is currently facing trial in a case involving charges of criminal breach of trust, forgery, and corruption under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act (FIR No.05/2022).

Earlier, in February 2025, the trial court had granted Pahalwan an NOC, which allowed him to obtain a passport for a limited period of one year to undertake the Hajj Pilgrimage. After completing his pilgrimage, he again approached the trial court, this time seeking an NOC to obtain a passport with a standard validity of five years.

Trial Court's Rejection

The Special Judge, Anticorruption, Anantnag, dismissed the application on two primary grounds: 1. The application was deemed "premature" as the previously issued one-year NOC was still valid until February 2026. 2. The petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence proving a "pressing need" to travel abroad for business or other purposes.

High Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

Justice Sanjay Dhar, delivering the judgment, strongly refuted the trial court's rationale. The High Court held that the right to hold a passport is a crucial aspect of the right to personal liberty, as established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) .

The court observed that a citizen is not obligated to demonstrate a compelling reason to travel abroad to be entitled to a passport.

> "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."

Addressing the "premature" argument, the High Court noted that since the petitioner's passport was approaching its expiry date, he was well within his rights to seek its renewal to maintain a valid travel document.

The Limited Role of a Criminal Court in NOC Matters

The judgment provided clear guidance on the scope of a criminal court's inquiry when deciding on an NOC application for an accused person. The court's role is not to act as a gatekeeper for foreign travel but to ensure the integrity of the ongoing trial.

The High Court's pivotal observation was:

> "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..."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2025. The case was remanded to the trial court with a clear directive to reconsider the petitioner's application for an NOC in light of the legal principles articulated in the judgment.

This decision serves as a vital reminder to lower courts that the right to travel is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed on arbitrary grounds. It clarifies that while courts must balance the rights of an accused with the interests of justice, the inquiry for granting an NOC for a passport should be narrowly focused on the sole question of the accused's availability to stand trial.