Union Of India & Anr. vs Rajgopal Chakravarthi Venkateish
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.05.2026
+ LPA 389/2026, CM APPL. 34129/2026, CM APPL. 34130/2026 &
CM APPL. 34131/2026
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with
Ms. Narreen Khatoon, GP, Mr. Syed
Abdur Rahman and Mr. Muhammad
Aamir Khan, Advs.
versus
RAJGOPAL CHAKRAVARTHI VENKATEISH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Ashish Prasad, Ms. Mukta
Datta, Mr. Atri Roy Chaudhary and
Mr. Harish Jain, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( Oral )
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order
dated 22.12.2025 (“ Impugned Order ”) passed in W.P.(CRL) 4257/2025
(“ Writ Petition ”), whereby the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent was
disposed of with a direction to Appellant No. 2 to consider the Respondent’s
application for renewal of Passport afresh, in accordance with law, without
insisting upon a court-specified validity period.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 1 of 16
2. The Respondent filed the Writ Petition seeking direction to Appellant
No. 2 for renewing the Passport for ten years as per Rule 12 of the Passport
Rules, 1980 (“ Rules ”).
3. The Respondent is an accused in Summons Case being COMA No.
259/2024, which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Gurugram (“ JFMC ”) based on a complaint filed by the Divisional
Forest Officer, Gurugram under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act,
1927. The said proceedings before the learned JFMC have been stayed by
the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
4. The Respondent contended in the Writ Petition that Appellant No. 2
renewed the Respondent’s Passport for a period of one (1) year instead of
ten (10) years, as mandated under the Passports Act, 1967 (“ Act ”) read with
the Rules by placing reliance on notification No. G.S.R 570(E) dated
25.08.1993 (“ Notification ”) issued by Appellant No. 1. According to the
Respondent, the Notification issued under Section 22(a) of the Act puts
obligation on the Court to decide the tenure of issuance / renewal of a
Passport of a person, who is accused in a pending criminal proceeding
although the Act and the Rules are silent on such power.
5. The Respondent relied upon the decision in Kaushalya Devi v. State
of NCT of Delhi & Anr. , CRL.M.C. 3166/2025, wherein it has been held
that the Notification does not bind the Courts inasmuch as it goes beyond the
parent statute by imposing obligation on the Courts to decide the tenure of
issuance / renewal of the Passport when the Act read with the Rules do not
prescribe such a requirement.
6. The learned JMFC vide orders dated 27.08.2025 and 01.10.2025
granted ‘No Objection’ to the Respondent for renewing his Passport and has
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 2 of 16
permitted the Respondent to travel abroad. Further, the learned JFMC
directed Appellant No. 2 to renew the Respondent’s Passport ‘as per rules’.
7. The learned Single Judge in the Impugned Order observed that this
Court in Kaushalya Devi (supra) has already held that neither the Act nor
the Rules provide for a requirement to obtain a specific direction from the
competent Court prescribing the tenure for renewal of a Passport on the
ground that the Respondent is an accused in a pending criminal proceeding.
Therefore, it was held that Appellant No. 2 cannot insist upon a court-
specified validity period for renewal.
8. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the learned JFMC has
taken the same view upon a request made by the Respondent that the Court
has no authority to direct renewal of a Passport for any specified tenure and
the Passport authorities are required to act in accordance with the applicable
rules.
9. The Impugned Order also records that the Respondent has been
granted bail and there is no restriction on his travel. In any event, the learned
JFMC has granted ‘No Objection’ for renewal of the Respondent’s Passport
and also granted permission to travel abroad. Accordingly, relying upon
Kaushalya Devi (supra), the Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction
to Appellant No. 2 to consider the Respondent’s application for renewal of
the Passport afresh, in accordance with law, without insisting upon a court-
specified validity period.
10. The Appellants have challenged the Impugned Order on the ground
that the same is contrary to public policy and the Notification. It was
submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate that the Notification, in conjunction with Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 3 of 16
22 of the Act, confers discretionary powers upon the Court to evaluate the
validity of Passport, while considering the needs of the accused in relation to
the trial. It was further submitted that if the Court opts not to exercise this
power, the Passport will be issued for a period of one (1) year.
11. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that for issuance of
Passport for more than one (1) year, it is mandatorily required for the Court
to ascertain the tenure, for which the Passport should be issued as per the
discretion of the Court.
12. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that Section 22 of
the Act empowers the Central Government to grant exemption to any
individual or class of individuals from enforcement of any provision of the
Act or the Rules by issuing a notification in accordance with the prescribed
conditions, and in exercise of such power, the Notification has been issued,
which provides for the requirement for permission from the Court with
regard to the conditions that govern the validity of Passport.
13. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submitted that, although a
Passport ordinarily remains valid for a period of ten (10) years from the date
of its issue, where any person or class of persons is granted an exemption,
the entitlement to such passport stands regulated by the specific terms and
conditions contained in the relevant exemption notification. It was
contended that, once such exemption is invoked to relax the statutory
embargo contained in Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, the validity of the passport
may lawfully be curtailed in accordance with the conditions so prescribed.
14. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate that Section 7 of the Act empowers the Passport
Authority to issue a Passport for a period shorter than the prescribed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 4 of 16
duration, thereby indicating that validity for ten (10) years is not an
immutable mandate but the general rule, subject to statutory exceptions. It
was further contended that the Notification, read conjointly with Section 22
of the Act, makes it incumbent upon the Court to determine the period of
validity of the Passport.
15. Learned counsel for the Appellants further placed reliance upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of
India & Anr. , Neutral Citation: 2025:INSC:1476, wherein it was observed
that the Notification recognizes that persons facing criminal proceedings are
not to be regarded as absolutely disentitled to a Passport. Rather, such
persons may obtain a Passport, notwithstanding Section 6(2)(f) of the Act,
where the concerned criminal court has applied its mind and passed an order
with respect to the issuance or use of the Passport, and the applicant
furnishes an undertaking to appear before the Court as and when required. It
was also observed that, where the Court specifies the period for which the
passport is to be issued, the Passport Authority is bound to honour the same;
however, where no such period is stipulated, the Notification provides
default rules, including issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily one (1) year,
in appropriate cases.
16. On the aforesaid basis, learned counsel for the Appellants submitted
that, in the absence of any stipulation by the learned JFMC, the default rule
would operate, and the passport could be issued only for a period of one (1)
year. It was, accordingly, prayed that the Impugned Order be set aside.
17. In response, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that, in
view of the law laid down in Kaushalya Devi (supra), there is no
requirement in law for the Court to specify the duration for which the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 5 of 16
passport is to be renewed. It was further submitted that the decision in
Mahesh Kumar (supra) does not lay down that, in the absence of such
specification by the Court, the passport can be issued only for one (1) year.
18. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that, vide e-
mail dated 29.01.2026, Appellant No. 2 informed the Respondent that his
case would be considered afresh pursuant to the Impugned Order and called
upon him to submit a fresh application for renewal of the passport and
comply with the requisite formalities. It was contended that, in view of the
said communication, Appellant No. 2 had accepted the Impugned Order and,
therefore, could not now assail the same in the present Appeal.
19. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.
20. The statutory framework of the Act and the Rules that is relevant for
this Appeal are as under:
Sections 6, 7 and 22 of the Act:
“ 6. Refusal of passports, travel documents. etc.
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport
authority shall refuse to make an endorsement for visiting any
foreign country under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and no other
ground, namely: -
(a) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage in such
country in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of
India:
(b) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or
is likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(c) that the presence of the applicant in such country may, or
is likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with that or any
other country,
(d) that in the opinion of the Central Government the
presence of the applicant in such country is not in the public interest.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport
authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 6 of 16
visiting any foreign country under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
section 5 on any one or more of the following grounds, and on no
other ground, namely: -
(a) that the applicant is not a citizen of India.,
(b) that the applicant may, or is likely to, engage outside
India in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of
India.,
(c) that the departure of the applicant from India may, or is
likely to, be detrimental to the security of India;
(d) that the presence of the applicant outside India may, or is
likely to, prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign
country;
(e) that the applicant has, at any time during the period of
five years immediately preceding the date of his application, been
convicted by a court in India for any offence involving moral
turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment for not
less than two years;
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have
been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court
in India;
(g) that a warrant or summons for the appearance, or a
warrant for the arrest, of the applicant has been issued by a court
under any law for the time being in force or that an order
prohibiting the departure from India of the applicant has been made
by any such court;
(h) that the applicant has been repatriated and has not
reimbursed the expenditure incurred in connection with such
repatriation;
(i) that in the opinion of the Central Government the issue of
a passport or travel document to the applicant will not be in the
public interest. ”
“ 7. Duration of travel document
A passport or travel document shall, unless revoked earlier, continue
in force for such period as may be prescribed and different periods
may be prescribed for different classes of passports or travel
documents or for different categories of passports or travel
documents under each such class:
Provided that a passport or travel document may be issued for a
shorter period than the prescribed period-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 7 of 16
(a) if the person by whom it is required so desires; or
(b) if the passport authority, for reasons to be communicated
in writing to the applicant, considers in any case that the passport or
travel document should be issued for a shorter period. ”
“ 22. Power to exempt
Where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary
or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in
the Official Gazette and subject to such conditions, if any, as it may
specify in the notification,-
(a) exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of
all or any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made
thereunder; and
(b) as often as may be, cancel any such notification and again
subject, by a like notification, the person or class of persons to the
operation of such provisions. ”
Rule 12 of the Rules:
“ 12. Duration of passports or travel documents. -
[(1) An ordinary passport for persons other than children below
the age of 15 years, containing thirty-six pages or sixty pages
shall be in force for a period of 10 years [], from the date of*
its issue.
(1A) An ordinary passport for a child below the age of 15
years, containing thirty-six pages shall be in force for a
period of 5 years from the date of its issue or until the child
attains the age of 15 years, whichever is earlier.]
(2) An India-Bangladesh passport shall continue in force for a
period of three years from the date of its issue.
(3) An India-Sri Lanka passport shall continue in force for a
period of four years from the date of its issue.
(4) An emergency certificate shall continue in force for a period
of [three months] from the date of its issue.
[(5) A certificate of identity shall continue in force for a period of
ten years from the date of its issue.]
(6) A diplomatic and an official passport shall continue in force
for a period to be decided in each case by the Central
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 8 of 16
Government or the passport authority which issues the passport:
Provided that the total life of a diplomatic or an official passport
shall be ten years from the date of its issue.
[(7) The passport for Haj pilgrims shall be valid for a period of
eight month from the date of issue.]”
21. The Notification relied upon by the Appellants provides that:
G.S.R. 570(E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a)
“
of Section 22 of the Passports Act 1967 (15 of 1967) and in
suppression of the notification of the Government of India in the
Ministry of External Affairs No. G.S.R. 298(E), dated the 14th April,
1976, the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is
necessary in public interest to do so, hereby exempts citizens of
India against whom proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to
have been committed by them are pending before a criminal court in
India and who produce orders from the court concerned permitting
them to depart from India, from the operation of the provisions of
Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act, subject to
the following conditions, namely :-
(a) the passport to be issued to every such citizen shall be
issued—
(i) for the period specified in order of the court referred to
above, if the court specifies a period for which the passport
has to be issued; or
(ii) if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the
travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be
issued for a period of one year;
(iii) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a
period less than one year, but does not specify the period
validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one
year; or
(iv) if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a
period exceeding one year, and does not specify the validity
of the passport, then the passport shall be issued for the
period of travel abroad specified in the order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 9 of 16
(b) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) and (a) (ii) above can
be further renewed for one year at a time, provided the applicant
has not travelled abroad for the period sanctioned by the court;
and no period further than, in the meantime, the order of the
court is not cancelled or modified;
(c) any passport issued in terms of (a) (i) above can be further
renewed on the basis of a fresh court order specifying a further
period of validity of the passport or specifying a period for travel
abroad;
(d) the said citizen shall give an undertaking in writing to the
passport issuing authority that he shall, if required by the court
concerned, appear before it at any time during the continuance in
force of the passport so issued. ”
22. The Appellants have assailed the Impugned Order principally on the
ground that, in the absence of any period being specified by the Court before
which the criminal proceedings are pending, Appellant No. 2 lacks the
authority to renew the Passport for a period exceeding one (1) year.
23. This Court, in Kaushalya Devi (supra), has held that the Notification
does not bind the Courts and that, once the Court has declined to curtail the
Respondent’s right and has left the matter to be governed by the statutory
framework, Appellant No. 2 is required to apply the law as it stands, without
importing any constraint regarding the duration of extension of the Passport
by placing reliance upon the Notification.
24. Accordingly, since the learned JFMC has granted ‘No Objection’ to
the renewal of the Respondent’s Passport, has permitted the Respondent to
travel abroad, and has directed Appellant No. 2 to renew the Passport in
accordance with the Rules, the stand of the Appellants that no power exists
to renew the Passport beyond a period of one (1) year is wholly
misconceived.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 10 of 16
25. Section 6(2)(f) of the Act stipulates that the Passport Authority shall
refuse to issue a Passport where proceedings in respect of an offence alleged
to have been committed by the applicant are pending before a criminal court
in India.
26. Section 7 of the Act provides that a Passport shall be issued for such
duration as may be prescribed, subject to the proviso that a Passport may be
issued for a shorter period than the prescribed period where the Passport
Authority, for reasons to be communicated in writing to the applicant,
considers it appropriate so to do.
27. Section 22 of the Act provides that the Central Government may, by
notification, exempt any person or class of persons from the operation of all
or any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, where it is
of the opinion that such exemption is necessary or expedient in the public
interest.
28. Rule 12 of the Rules provides that an ordinary Passport shall
ordinarily be valid for a period of ten (10) years from the date of its issue.
Consequently, a Passport issued under Section 7 of the Act would ordinarily
be valid for a period of ten (10) years, unless the Passport Authority, for
reasons to be communicated in writing to the applicant, considers it fit to
issue the same for a shorter duration.
29. By virtue of the Notification, citizens of India against whom criminal
proceedings are pending before a criminal court in India, and who produce
an order of the concerned Court permitting them to depart from India, stand
exempted from the operation of Section 6(2)(f) of the Act, subject to the
conditions specified therein. One such condition is that, where the Court
specifies the period for which the Passport is to be issued, the Passport shall
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 11 of 16
be issued for the period so specified. The Notification further provides that,
where no period for the issuance of the Passport is specified in the Court’s
order, the Passport shall be issued for a period of one (1) year.
30. This Court in Kaushalya Devi (supra) has held that:
“ 9. The Passports Act, 1967 is a complete code that governs
the issuance, denial, impounding, and renewal of passports. Section
6(2)(f) of the Act empowers the Passport Authority to refuse
issuance or renewal of a passport where criminal proceedings are
pending against the applicant, unless the Court has granted
permission to travel. The said provision reads as follows:
“6. Refusal of passports, travel documents, etc.—
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the passport
authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel
document for visiting any foreign country under clause (c)
of sub-section (2) of section 5 on any one or more of the
following grounds, and on no other ground, namely:—
xxx … xxx … xxx
(f) that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged
to have been committed by the applicant are pending
before a criminal court in India;”
10. The afore-noted provision focuses entirely on the
permissibility of travel, not on the duration of the passport to be
granted. However, by way of the notification dated 25th August,
1993, the Government has exempted the operation of the afore-noted
provision for citizens of India against whom proceedings in respect
of an offence alleged who have been committed by them are pending
before a Criminal Court in India. For availing this exemption,
citizens are required to produce orders from the Court concerned
permitting them to depart from India. The insistence on specific
directions from the Court for determining the duration of a passport
is neither premised in the parent statute nor supported by any Rules
framed thereunder. The Passports Act does not contain any
provision that empowers the Court to adjudicate on such
administrative matters.
11. While the notification dated 25th August, 1993 purports
to be issued under Section 22(a) of the Passports Act, it cannot be
read as imposing binding conditions on the Court. Section 22(a)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 12 of 16
merely empowers the Central Government to exempt any person or
class of persons from the operation of the provisions of the
Passports Act or any Rule framed thereunder. It does not empower
the Government to impose a new regime of conditions for passport
issuance where the parent statute is silent. The notification, in
essence, goes beyond exemption and creates a positive obligation on
Courts to specify validity periods and imposes contingent
restrictions where no such requirement exists under the statute.
12. The practice of requiring a Court order specifying the
duration of the renewed passport is, at best, an internal
administrative measure, and cannot be read as having the force of
law. The Court’s role in the passport issuance or renewal process is
limited to ensuring that the individual seeking a passport has not
been prohibited from leaving the country under specific orders of
the Court, such as bail conditions. However, beyond this, the Court
is not required to intervene in determining the duration of a
passport’s validity. In the present case, the Trial Court discharged
its limited judicial function in accordance with law by declining to
impose any embargo on the renewal of passport and requiring the
Petitioner to seek prior leave to travel as per the statute. The
interpretation placed by the Passport Authorities on the 1993
notification, as requiring a court-specified validity period, is plainly
inconsistent with the Passports Act. The power to determine such
administrative details, particularly the validity period, remains
exclusively with the Passport Authorities under the Passports Act
and the Rules framed thereunder and is not dependent on judicial
directives unless the Court has itself curtailed the rights of the
individual.
13. It is well established that delegated legislation cannot
transgress the limits of the enabling statute. The Supreme Court in
Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India,
observed that “a delegated legislation or a subordinate legislation
must conform exactly to the power granted.”. In Naresh Chandra
Agrawal v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Others,
the Supreme Court reiterated held that while rules and notifications
issued under delegated authority may be presumed valid, they must
not override or supplement the parent Act. A notification cannot be
treated as a source of substantive obligations unless the statute itself
clearly permits such delegation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 13 of 16
14. The notification effectively introduces a regime where
Courts are expected to pronounce on the period of passport validity,
and if they refrain from doing so, the citizen’s entitlement is
curtailed to one year, regardless of the circumstances. This is wholly
inconsistent with the legislative scheme of the Passports Act. If
Parliament had intended that Courts determine the term of validity
for a passport where criminal proceedings are pending, it would
have clearly articulated so under the Act. In its current form, the
notification seeks to insert by executive fiat what the legislature has
consciously omitted. It is a settled principle that delegated
legislation cannot supplement primary law where the statute is
silent.
15. The notification cannot be treated as binding on Courts
or interpreted as modifying the scheme of the Act. The order of the
Trial Court in the present case has, in fact, correctly recognised this
position. By stating that there is no objection to the Petitioner
applying for renewal “as per rules,” the Court has rightly left it to
the Passport Authority to decide the matter in accordance with the
law. There is no warrant for reading into this order any implied
limitation or default tenure of one year. Once the Court has declined
to restrict the Petitioner’s right and left the matter to the statutory
framework, the Passport Office must apply the law as it stands and
consider the Petitioner’s application without invoking any artificial
constraint introduced by the 1993 notification.
16. This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate to clarify that
notification may serve as a general administrative guideline, it
cannot override the provisions of the parent statute, nor can it
impose any obligation upon the Courts to pronounce on the tenure
of a passport. The judicial function is to assess whether a person
ought to be restrained from travelling abroad on account of pending
proceedings. If the Court imposes no such restriction, and merely
states that travel abroad shall require prior permission, the
Passport Authority must proceed in accordance with law, treating
the application for renewal on its merits. The validity period of the
passport is to be governed by the Passports Act and the Passport
Rules, not by the absence of a court-imposed tenure. ”
31. In view of the foregoing, it is not mandatory for the Court to specify
the duration for renewal of the Passport since the Notification cannot
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 14 of 16
override the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Where the Court has not
imposed any restriction in regard to the duration for renewal of the Passport,
the Passport Authority is obliged to consider the application for renewal in
accordance with law and on its own merits, and the period of validity shall
be governed by the Act and the Rules.
32. The Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (supra) has observed
that:
“ On a plain reading, GSR 570(E) does two things. First, it
recognises that persons facing criminal proceedings are not to be
treated as absolutely disentitled to a passport. Instead, it permits
such persons to obtain a passport, notwithstanding Section 6(2)(f),
where the concerned criminal court has applied its mind and passed
an order in relation to issuance or use of the passport and where the
applicant furnishes an undertaking to appear before the court as
and when required. Secondly, it structures the exercise of that
exemption by tying the validity and use of the passport to the terms
of the court's order. Thus, where the court specifies a period for
which the passport is to be issued, the passport authority must
honour that period. Where the court does not stipulate any period,
the notification provides default rules, including issuance for a
shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate cases. What the
notification does not do is to create a new substantive bar beyond
Section 6(2)(f), or to insist that the criminal court must, in every
case, grant a prior blanket permission to “depart from India” for
specified dates as a jurisdictional precondition to the very issue or
re-issue of a passport. ”
33. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the
Appellants to argue that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that where
the Court has not specified any period, the renewal can only be for a period
of one (1) year is also misconceived as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has only
recorded the provisions of the Notification by stating that in appropriate
case, the Passport Authority has power to issue the Passport for a shorter
duration as well.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 15 of 16
34. In view of the above, the decision in Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (supra)
does not lay down that, in the absence of a court-specified period, the
Passport Authority is denuded of the power to renew a Passport for a period
exceeding one (1) year. The legal position, as enunciated in Kaushalya Devi
(supra), is unequivocal that where the Court has not specified any duration,
the renewal of the Passport must be considered strictly in accordance with
the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
35. The Impugned Order, likewise, proceeds on the basis of the law laid
down in Kaushalya Devi (supra) and correctly holds that the Respondent’s
Passport is liable to be renewed in accordance with law, without insistence
upon any court-specified period of validity. We are, therefore, of the
considered view that the Impugned Order correctly reiterates the position in
law and warrants no interference.
36. Accordingly, the present Appeal dismissed.
37. Since we find that the Appeal was entirely misconceived, we deem it
appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 20,000 to be paid to the Delhi High
Court Bar Clerks’ Association, A/c No.15530100006282, IFSC Code:
UCBA0001553, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MAY 19, 2026
ap/sms
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:29.05.2026
12:03:23
LPA 389/2026 Page 16 of 16