Passport Authorities Must Renew Passport for Ten Years Despite Pending Criminal Proceedings Subject to Trial Court Permission

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to renew her passport for the standard 10-year period

The respondent authority withheld renewal on the grounds of a pending criminal case (FIR No. 1119902220009 of 2022) against the petitioner

the High Court of Gujarat had previously stayed all proceedings and further investigations regarding the said FIR via an order dated 16.12.2022 in Special Criminal Application No. 5999 of 2022

The petitioner required the passport to perform the Pilgrimage Haji

1. Whether the passport authority is justified in restricting the renewal period of a passport solely due to the pendency of criminal proceedings when a stay has been granted by a higher court

2. Whether the guidelines established by the Bombay High Court regarding the application of GSR Notification 570(E) should be applied to ensure a 10-year renewal

The court primarily applied Section 6(2)(f) and Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, and the Ministry of External Affairs Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, which governs the issuance of passports to citizens facing criminal proceedings

It further relied on the legal principles established by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 361 of 2014), which clarified that if no specific period is mandated by a court order, or if the court directs renewal "as per Rules," the passport should be renewed for the standard 10-year period under the Passport Rules, 1980

The court reasoned that while GSR Notification 570(E) provides for a one-year renewal where a criminal court has not specified a duration, this must be balanced against the Passport Rules, 1980, which specify a 10-year validity

The court adopted the persuasive value of the Narendra K. Ambwani precedent, noting that passport authorities lack the jurisdiction to unilaterally decide an accused person's right to travel; that authority rests solely with the Trial Court.

Since the High Court had already stayed the investigation into the petitioner’s FIR, the court found no justification for a restrictive renewal. It held that the ambiguity in the GSR Notification should not deprive a citizen of a standard 10-year passport, provided they remain subject to the Trial Court’s permission for actual departure from India

The court clarified that while the passport is to be issued for 10 years, the petitioner must still obtain specific permission from the Trial Court before undertaking any travel abroad, subject to any conditions that the Trial Court may impose. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs