J&K High Court: No Travel Proof Needed for Passport NOC by Accused
- Lawttorney.ai
- Jan 2
- 4 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
Introduction:
In an important decision reinforcing individual freedom and due process, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has determined that a citizen is not obligated to prove an urgent need for international travel to secure a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from a criminal court for the issuance or renewal of a passport. The Court emphasized that the entitlement to possess a passport exists separately from current or impending travel arrangements.
The verdict was issued by Justice Sanjay Dhar in Zahoor Ahmad Pahalwan v. Union Territory of J&K, in which the High Court overturned a trial court ruling that denied the accused an NOC due to the absence of documentary evidence for business-related foreign travel.
Quick Answer
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that an accused person is not required to provide documentary proof of foreign travel to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a passport. The right to hold a passport exists independently of any present or planned international travel.
Background of the Case:
The applicant, Zahoor Ahmad Pahalwan, stands as a defendant in an ongoing corruption case. While the trial was ongoing, he requested the trial court’s approval to acquire a passport to undertake the Haj pilgrimage.
Recognizing the request, the special judge had previously issued him an NOC on 24 February, allowing the issuance of a one-year short-validity passport, which permitted him to undertake Haj.
Upon finishing the pilgrimage, Pahalwan reapplied to the trial court, now requesting an NOC for the issuance of a standard five-year passport. Nonetheless, the trial court denied the request, asserting that:
The previous NOC was effective until February 23, 2026, and
The petitioner did not provide any documentary evidence showing a necessity for international travel for business purposes.
Dissatisfied with this ruling, the petitioner sought the High Court's intervention.
Why Did the High Court Reject the Trial Court’s Reasoning?
Justice Sanjay Dhar characterized the rationale used by the trial court as “fallacious” and in opposition to established legal principles. The High Court determined that the trial court mistakenly believed that obtaining an NOC or passport depends on demonstrating urgent or essential international travel.
The Court emphasized that this approach incorrectly restricts a basic civil right and introduces factors not acknowledged by law.
Does an Accused Need Travel Plans to Hold a Passport?
The High Court firmly decided that a citizen's entitlement to possess a passport is not contingent on their intention to travel internationally right away or ever.
"The Court noted that a citizen does not need to prove before the court or the Passport Authority that there is an urgent need to travel abroad in order to obtain a passport or NOC."
It highlighted that because the legal right to possess a passport exists, a citizen is still entitled to it without an immediate need for foreign travel. As a result, the trial court's demand for written evidence of business travel was legally incorrect.
What Can a Criminal Court Examine While Granting a Passport NOC?
The High Court additionally explained the restricted authority of a criminal court when reviewing a request for the issuance of an NOC in favor of an accused.
The Court states that the only factor a criminal court should consider is
Whether the defendant, if permitted to acquire a passport or go overseas, is likely to be present for trial?
No other irrelevant factors, like the reason for travel, type of job, business requirements, or pilgrimage intentions, ought to affect the court’s ruling.
“The criminal court’s decision on an NOC application must not be swayed by any other factors,” the court stated.
Expiry of Passport and Right to Renewal:
Responding to the trial court’s remark that the current NOC was valid until February 2026, the High Court pointed out that the nearing expiration of a passport gives a citizen the right to request renewal.
The Court emphasized that renewing a passport is a valid exercise of a citizen's right and cannot be refused solely because the previous NOC has not officially expired.
Final Order of the High Court:
Given these findings, the High Court:
Revoke the trial court's ruling denying the NOC application, and
Returned the case to the trial court for new evaluation in line with the appropriate legal stance.
The Court ordered that the application be reassessed solely on the grounds of ensuring the petitioner’s presence at the trial.
Appearances:
Advocate Saqib Shabir represented the petitioner.
The respondents were represented by Government Advocate Ilyas Laway.
Conclusion:
This ruling strengthens the idea that procedural limitations cannot infringe upon fundamental civil rights, particularly when those limitations lack legal support. The High Court has safeguarded the equilibrium between personal liberty and criminal justice by precisely defining the restricted function of criminal courts in passport issues, preventing ongoing trials from serving as a universal hindrance to the enjoyment of legitimate personal freedoms.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Can an accused get a passport without proof of travel?
Yes. The J&K High Court has clarified that an accused person does not need to provide proof of foreign travel to obtain a passport NOC.
What can a criminal court consider while granting a passport NOC?
Only whether the accused is likely to appear for trial if permitted to hold a passport or travel abroad.
Can passport renewal be denied if the previous NOC is still valid?
No. The Court held that the right to renew a passport exists independently and cannot be denied on this ground alone.
Stay Ahead in Legal Practice
Whether you’re a lawyer, paralegal, or law student, Lawttorney AI helps you:
Save time on research
Avoid errors in drafting
Make data-driven legal decisions
🎯 Join our exclusive webinar to see Lawttorney.AI in action and transform the way you work!
Comments