Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reiterated that holding a passport is a constitutional right and a citizen is not required to demonstrate any “pressing need” to travel abroad in order to obtain a ‘no objection certificate’.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar while deciding a petition challenging an order of an anti-corruption court that had rejected an accused’s application for NOC for passport renewal.
In a detailed judgment, Justice Dhar held that “it is a settled law that every citizen has a legal right to hold a passport and that the said right can be taken away only in accordance with law.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, the court observed that personal liberty includes the right to travel abroad and that no citizen can be deprived of this right unless authorised by law.
The court made it clear that “for obtaining a passport or NOC, it is not necessary for a citizen to demonstrate before the court or the passport authority that he has some pressing need for travelling abroad.” It added that the reasoning adopted by the trial court in insisting on documentary proof of necessity for foreign travel was contrary to the established law.
The petitioner, Zahoor Ahmad Pahalwan, is facing trial in a corruption related case involving offences under Sections 409, 418, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the IPC and Sections 7A, 8, 12 and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the pendency of the case, he had earlier obtained a one year passport after the trial court granted him NOC for undertaking Hajj pilgrimage.
When the petitioner later approached the trial court again seeking NOC for renewal of the passport for five years, the application was dismissed mainly on two grounds — that the earlier NOC was still valid till February 2026, and that he had not produced documents showing the necessity of travel in connection with business.
The High Court rejected both grounds as unsustainable. It held that an accused has a right to apply for renewal ahead of expiry, and also does not have to justify travel with business proof. The proper legal test for a criminal court, the High Court said, is limited to one concern — whether the accused would remain available for trial if allowed to travel abroad.
“No other factor should influence the decision of the criminal court while considering an application for grant of NOC,” the court ruled and allowed the petition. (KNT)
