Passport Authorities cannot insist on court-specified validity periods for renewals during pending criminal proceedings.

The Respondent, an accused in a pending criminal case under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, applied for the renewal of his passport

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Gurugram, granted a 'No Objection' for renewal and permission to travel abroad, directing authorities to renew the passport "as per rules"

However, the Passport Authority (Appellant No. 2) renewed the passport for only one year, citing Notification No. G.S.R 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, which stipulates a default one-year validity if the court does not specify a tenure

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court set aside this action, directing a fresh consideration for a ten-year renewal without insisting on a court-specified period

Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which allows refusal of a passport if criminal proceedings are pending, and Section 22, which empowers the Government to grant exemptions via notification

Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980, which prescribes a standard ten-year validity for ordinary passports

The court heavily followed the precedent in Kaushalya Devi v. State of NCT of Delhi, which held that delegated legislation (like the 1993 Notification) cannot impose positive obligations on Courts to perform administrative tasks like determining passport tenure

It also interpreted Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2025), clarifying that the Supreme Court did not denude authorities of the power to grant full-term renewals in the absence of court-specified periods

The Court reasoned that the 1993 Notification serves as an exemption mechanism to bypass the bar under Section 6(2)(f), but it cannot override the parent Act or the Rules regarding the standard duration of a passport

The Court observed that while the Notification provides "default rules" for administrative convenience, it does not bind the judiciary nor does it strip the Passport Authority of its discretion under Section 7 to issue a passport for the prescribed ten-year period when a court has expressed no objection

It was emphasized that a court's role is judicial—assessing travel risk—whereas determining the clerical validity period is an administrative function of the Passport Office

The Court found the Appellants’ interpretation of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal flawed, noting that the Supreme Court merely acknowledged the Notification's existence as an administrative guideline but did not mandate a one-year limit where a Magistrate leaves the decision to the "rules"

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's order and imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the Appellants for filing a "misconceived" appeal