On Wednesday, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that courts cannot compel an accused to establish any business-related or urgent necessity to obtain a passport. Justice Sanjay Dhar, while examining the legality of an order refusing a No Objection Certificate (NOC), declared that the trial court’s approach was contrary to settled legal doctrine, observing that the “right to hold a passport is an important constitutional right of a citizen.”
The case arose from criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, who is facing trial for alleged offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the pendency of the trial, he sought a No Objection Certificate from the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, to undertake the Hajj pilgrimage. The trial court granted a limited NOC valid for one year, on the basis of which a one-year passport was issued to him. Upon returning from the pilgrimage, the petitioner applied for a fresh NOC to renew his passport for a full five-year term. However, in October 2025, the trial court rejected the application, treating it as premature and observing that he had not produced any document demonstrating a business-related necessity for foreign travel.
The petitioner challenged the trial court’s refusal, asserting that the reasoning was legally untenable. The State, represented by its counsel, contested the petition but accepted notice when the matter came up before the High Court.
Justice Sanjay Dhar found both grounds taken by the trial court to be untenable, terming them “specious.” Emphasising the constitutional foundation of the right, the Court quoted the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and reiterated that the right to personal liberty includes the right to travel abroad. The Court held that "Thus, right to hold a passport is an important constitutional right of a citizen. Therefore, for obtaining passport or NOC, it is not necessary for a citizen to demonstrate before the court or before the Passport Authority that he has some pressing need for travelling abroad. 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.”
The Court noted that such a requirement “is contrary to the legal position.” The Court also clarified the limited scope of judicial scrutiny in such applications, stating “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 while considering an application for grant of NOC in favour of an accused who intends to obtain a passport/travel document.”
Finding the impugned order legally untenable, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the trial court’s order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment. The Court directed that its order be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.
Case Title: Zahoor Ahmad Pahalwan Vs. UT of J&K
Case No.: CRM(M) No.736/2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Saqib Shabir
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Ilyas Laway, GA
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : twitter.com
