Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In an application filed by performer Sapna Choudhary against the Trial Court’s order rejecting her request for an No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) for renewal of her passport and permission to travel abroad, the Single Judge Bench of Pankaj Bhatia, J., allowed the application, holding that the impugned order was violative of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution as no such restrictions had been placed upon her for travelling abroad in the criminal case or bail order.
Background
Sapna Choudhary, a stage performer, was scheduled to perform at a show in Lucknow, but it was cancelled, and an FIR was registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against her. The Trial Court enlarged her on bail without any condition regarding Sapna not leaving the country without the Court’s permission.
During the pendency of the case, Sapna was required to furnish an NOC from the Trial Court concerned in terms of the Office Memorandum issued under the Passports Act, 1967 (“the Act”), and the impugned order was passed.
Hence, the present application.
Analysis
Considering Sapna’s need to travel abroad for performing, the Court stated that, prima facie, no material existed to suggest that she would be a flight risk or that her application for re-issuance/ renewal of the passport should not be considered in the absence of any adverse conduct.
Further, noting that the case had been pending since 2018 due to non-issuance/ non-grant of a passport, the Court remarked that her rights are infringed merely because no documents were filed, and her travel request could not be denied as done in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned order was violative of Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution and contrary to the mandate of the Government Orders and the Office Memorandum, thus the same could not be sustained and had to be set aside. In this regard, the Court relied on Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887.
Upon perusal of the Office Memorandum and the provisions of the Act, the Court stated that it was clear that the issuance of a passport and the condition to not leave the country without the permission of a Court are two distinct things. In the present case, even in the bail order, no such restrictions had been placed upon Sapna for travelling abroad. Thus, the Court held that the impugned order could not be justified based on the reasoning and the law laid down in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (Supra).
“The impugned order is premised on the foundation that restrictions were placed on the rights of Sapna to travel abroad, whereas no such restrictions appeared to be placed on her, even in the bail order.”
Thus, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Trial Court to issue a NOC to Sapna for the grant of a passport, which shall be processed for a normal period of 10 years. However, the Court also directed that it shall be open to the prosecution to seek a variance of the condition of the bail order, if so desired, based upon the contingencies that may be pleaded in the pending case.
[Sapna Choudhary v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 19, decided on 07-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Keshav Prasad, Anurag Pratap Singh, Preeti Singh, Radha Gautam
For the respondent: Additional Govt Advocate, Senior Advocate S.B. Pandey, DSGI, Varun Pandey
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
