Srinagar: The Additional Sessions Court in Srinagar Thursday directed the Regional Passport Office to consider the renewal of National Conference president and former Chief Minister Dr Farooq Abdullah’s passport for one year, holding that issuance of a passport does not automatically entitle an accused to travel abroad.
The court ruled that prior permission of the competent court will remain mandatory in pendency of criminal proceedings against Abdullah arising out of the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA) fund misappropriation case.
The accused Abdullah had approached the court seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) after the Regional Passport Office sought court permission in view of the pending case.
He submitted that proceedings against him had been kept in abeyance following an interim order in his revision petition challenging the framing of charges, and argued that renewal of his passport would not prejudice the prosecution.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opposed the plea, contending that Dr. Abdullah continues to face prosecution in a serious corruption case relating to the alleged misappropriation of JKCA funds.
It argued that the stay on the order framing charges did not amount to quashing of the criminal proceedings, and expressed apprehension that renewal of the passport could facilitate his departure from the country, thereby frustrating the trial.
Examining the statutory framework under the Passports Act, 1967, the court observed that although Section 6(2)(f) permits refusal of a passport when criminal proceedings are pending, the Central government’s notifications issued under Section 22 create an exception by allowing issuance or renewal of a passport if the competent criminal court grants permission, subject to prescribed safeguards.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2025), the court held that the right to travel abroad is part of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and that pendency of a criminal case alone cannot be treated as an absolute bar to issuance or renewal of a passport.
It underlined the distinction between possessing a passport and obtaining judicial permission to leave the country, observing that a passport is merely a travel document and does not authorise foreign travel in violation of court-imposed restrictions.
The court further clarified that the interim stay on the order framing charges does not amount to an acquittal or exoneration of the petitioner.
It noted that Dr. Abdullah continues to remain bound by the bail conditions imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, including the restriction on leaving the court’s territorial jurisdiction without prior permission.
The court observed that issuance of an NOC for passport purposes would not dilute the authority of the trial court to regulate his movements.
Allowing Abdullah’s petition Additional Sessions Judge, Farooq Ahmad Bhat directed the Passport Officer, Srinagar, to consider issuance or renewal of Dr. Abdullah’s passport for one year, subject to the condition that no other criminal case debarring issuance of a passport is pending against him.
“An NOC is issued to the Passport Officer, Srinagar, with the direction to consider the issuance/renewal of the passport for a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order, subject to the condition that the petitioner /revisionist is not involved in any offence other than the case pending before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar,” Additional Sessions Judge said in a 14-page order.
The court also made it clear that Dr. Abdullah must obtain prior permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate before travelling outside the Union Territory or abroad and ruled that the NOC would stand revoked if subsequent proceedings in the case are varied against his interest.
