Application for Passport Renewal is Person-Specific and Cannot be Refused Based on Relatives' Legal Proceedings

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Passport Authority can refuse the renewal of a passport based on adverse police reports concerning the applicant’s family members rather than the applicant himself

The court held

The Court held that the right to travel is a fundamental right and any restriction must be based strictly on statutory law

It also directed

It ruled that the passport authority could not indefinitely delay the application based on the status of the applicant's relatives

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Ministry of External Affairs and the Regional Passport Officer to pass a final order on the renewal/re-issuance application under Section 5(2) within four weeks

The Court clarified that the authorities maintain the discretion under Section 7 regarding the specific validity period of the renewed passport

01Facts

The petitioner is the wife of Mohammed Najim Uddin Chowdhury, an Indian citizen working in Saudi Arabia whose passport (issued in 2016) was set to expire on 27.01.2026

¶ 2

Chowdhury applied for a passport renewal at the Consulate General of India (CGI), Jeddah, on 04.12.2025

¶ 3

The renewal process stalled following an "Adverse" Police Verification Report (PVR) which noted that four of Chowdhury’s brothers were involved in Foreigners’ Tribunal proceedings regarding their citizenship

¶ 6–7

The Passport Issuing Authority (PIA) withheld the renewal on the grounds that Chowdhury’s citizenship was not confirmed due to his siblings’ legal status

¶ 7

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for renewal

¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Passport Authority can refuse the renewal of a passport based on adverse police reports concerning the applicant’s family members rather than the applicant himself

¶ 15–16

ii.2. Whether the pendency of citizenship proceedings against siblings constitutes a valid statutory ground for refusal under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, 1967

¶ 12, 16–17

03Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Passports Act, 1967, which regulate the issuance and refusal of travel documents

¶ 9–12

Section 6(2) exhaustively lists the grounds for refusing a passport—including lack of citizenship, pending criminal proceedings, or prejudice to national interest—and explicitly prohibits refusal on "no other ground"

¶ 12

The court also relied on the Supreme Court precedent Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2025), which established that the right to hold a passport is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and that re-issuance after expiry is a routine occurrence unless specific statutory disabilities apply

¶ 17

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Passports Act, 1967 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 22

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that passport issuance and renewal are "person-specific" and not "family-specific"

¶ 16

It found that while the applicant’s brothers were involved in citizenship litigations, there were no criminal cases or Foreigners’ Tribunal proceedings pending against the applicant himself

¶ 15

The court noted that under Section 6(2) of the Passports Act, the authority is strictly limited to the enumerated grounds of refusal

¶ 12

Since the applicant did not personally fall under any disability—such as being a non-citizen or having a pending criminal trial—the "adverse" report regarding his relatives was legally insufficient to stall the renewal

¶ 15–17

Furthermore, the court observed that the PIA had failed its statutory duty under Section 5(2) to pass a formal written order either granting or refusing the renewal

¶ 19