Government Notifies Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2026 With Major OCI And Passport Changes

The Bombay High Court has held that pendency of criminal cases cannot become an automatic ground to deny or delay passport renewal, especially when courts have not yet taken cognisance or issued summons. The ruling came from a bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and RR Bhonsale.

The Court observed that many applicants were facing serious hardship because passport authorities insisted on obtaining No Objection Certificates from criminal courts even at very early stages of criminal proceedings. According to the bench, this practice was causing unnecessary inconvenience and delays.

The matter involved petitioners whose passport renewals were getting delayed despite criminal cases being only at a preliminary stage. Several petitioners informed the Court that the delay was affecting their employment opportunities abroad and renewal of work visas.

While examining the issue, the High Court referred to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. The Court noted that the law permits refusal of passports only on specific statutory grounds and not through a routine or blanket approach.

The bench emphasised that restrictions related to passports are meant to ensure that an accused person remains available during trial proceedings. However, such restrictions should not be used to unnecessarily curtail fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Referring to a Supreme Court ruling, the High Court reiterated that liberty is a constitutional guarantee. The bench quoted: “The freedom of a citizen to move, to travel, to pursue livelihood and opportunity, subject to law, is an essential part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court also made an important distinction between possession of a passport and actual foreign travel. It clarified that merely holding a passport cannot be denied arbitrarily, though permission to travel abroad may still be regulated by courts depending on the facts of a case.

The judges observed that criminal courts and passport authorities perform different functions under the law. While criminal courts focus on ensuring the presence of the accused during proceedings, passport authorities exercise powers under the Passports Act and must independently assess applications.

The ruling is expected to provide relief to many individuals facing passport renewal delays because of pending criminal proceedings that have not substantially progressed. The judgement also reinforces the principle that procedural requirements should not unnecessarily interfere with a person’s livelihood and constitutional freedoms.