A stay of criminal proceedings does not bar the trial court from considering passport permission under GSR 570(E).

The petitioner sought renewal of her passport. The Regional Passport Officer issued an objection dated 25 June 2025, stating that her application could not be considered because criminal proceedings were pending against her in C.C. No. 56268/2025.

The petitioner challenged that objection and sought directions for processing her passport application.

The criminal proceedings had been stayed, insofar as the petitioner was concerned, by an interim order in Crl.P. No. 7883/2026; according to the petitioner, the trial court had therefore not entertained her application.

1. Whether the petitioner should be directed to seek an order from the court where the criminal proceedings were pending, under G.S.R. 570(E), to support her passport application.

2. Whether the stay of the criminal proceedings prevented the trial court from considering such an application.

Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 addresses refusal of a passport where criminal proceedings are pending; G.S.R. 570(E), issued under Section 22(a) of the Act, exempts an applicant from that provision subject to conditions, including production of an order from the concerned court permitting departure from India.

The notification also prescribes the applicable passport validity and requires an undertaking to appear before the court if required.

The Court relied on the Office Memorandum dated 10 October 2019, which states that G.S.R. 570(E) is to be applied in such cases and that the applicant’s undertaking must disclose all pending criminal cases.

It followed the approach in Chandrasekaran Rajendra v. Union of India and Another, W.P. No. 19961/2025, decided 9 July 2025, which directed the applicant to obtain suitable orders from the court where the proceedings were pending and clarified that a stay of proceedings did not prevent that court from considering the application under G.S.R. 570(E).

The Court treated the matter as governed by the procedure under G.S.R. 570(E), rather than itself directing the Passport Officer to issue or renew the passport.

Following the coordinate Bench’s decision in Chandrasekaran Rajendra, it held that the petitioner should approach the court where the criminal proceedings were pending and obtain suitable orders under the notification.

Since the proceedings were stayed only insofar as the petitioner was concerned, that stay did not prevent the trial court from considering her application under G.S.R. 570(E).

The Court clarified that the stay in Crl.P. No. 7883/2026 would not prevent the trial court from considering her application.

The Court did not itself quash the objection or direct the Passport Officer to issue the passport.