High Court Directs 10-Year Passport Renewal Despite Pending Criminal Proceedings and GSR Notification Limitations

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari or mandamus to quash a communication dated 22.11.2025 from the passport authorities, which refused to renew her passport for the standard 10-year term

The respondent authorities truncated the renewal period due to a pending criminal case where the petitioner had not yet been charge-sheeted

The petitioner contended that the investigation into the underlying FIR had been stayed by the High Court in separate quashing proceedings

The authorities argued that pursuant to GSR Notification 570(E), passports for individuals with pending criminal proceedings are generally restricted to one year unless otherwise specified by a court

1. Whether the passport authorities are mandated to renew a passport for a full 10-year term despite the pendency of criminal proceedings when the court has not specified a shorter duration

2. Whether the guidelines established by the Bombay High Court regarding the interpretation of the Passport Rules and GSR Notification 570(E) should be applied to ensure the right to travel

The court primarily applied Section 6(2)(f) and Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, which govern the refusal and exemption of passport issuance during pending criminal trials

It interpreted GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, which stipulates that if a court order does not specify a validity period, the passport shall be issued for one year

Furthermore, the court relied on the persuasive precedent of Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India Ors. (2014 SCC Online Bom 356), which clarified that the Passport Rules, 1980 generally entitle qualifying applicants to a 10-year renewal regardless of pending litigation, provided they obtain specific court permission to travel abroad

The court reasoned that while GSR Notification 570(E) provides a framework for restricted renewals, it contains ambiguities when read alongside the Passport Rules, 1980

Adopting the reasoning in Narendra K. Ambwani, the court determined that the passport authorities do not possess the judicial power to decide an accused person’s right to travel; that authority rests solely with the Trial Court

The court noted that a passport is a mere identity and travel document, and its validity period (10 years) should be distinct from the actual permission to depart the country

Since the investigation was stayed by the High Court and the petitioner was well-settled, the court found no justification for a restricted one-year renewal

It held that the respondent authority must renew the petitioner’s passport for a period of 10 years in accordance with the Passport Rules

However, the court clarified that this renewal does not grant an absolute right to leave the country; the petitioner remains obligated to seek specific permission from the concerned Trial Court before any foreign travel, at which point the Trial Court may impose necessary conditions

The authority was directed to process the renewal within four weeks