Passport Authorities must renew passports for ten years despite pending criminal proceedings if Court imposes no specific duration.

The petitioners applied to the Regional Passport Officer (RPO), Ahmedabad, for the re-issuance/renewal of their passports to reflect a change in residential address and to visit their children abroad

The RPO refused to renew the passports for the full 10-year validity period on the grounds that a criminal FIR was pending against the petitioners

The petitioners noted that the High Court had already stayed the FIR proceedings in a separate quashing petition and had deleted the bail condition requiring the surrender of their passports

The respondent authorities argued that under GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, since the Trial Court order did not specify a renewal period, the passport could only be issued for one year

1. Whether the passport authorities are required to renew a passport for the full statutory period of 10 years despite pending 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 GSR Notification 570(E) and the Passport Rules, 1980, should be applied to ensure the petitioners' right to a full-term passport

Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which allows for the refusal of a passport if criminal proceedings are pending, read with Section 22, which allows for exemptions

GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, which provides specific durations for passport issuance (one year vs. court-specified periods) for persons with pending cases

Precedent of Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India & Ors. (2014 SCC Online Bom 356), which established that if a Magistrate directs renewal "as per Rules," the Passport Rules, 1980 apply, necessitating a 10-year renewal for qualifying adults

The court reasoned that while GSR Notification 570(E) provides a default one-year renewal period when a court order is silent on duration, this must be balanced against the Passport Rules, 1980, which generally mandate a 10-year tenure

The court observed that passport authorities do not possess the judicial power to determine an individual's right to travel; that authority rests solely with the Trial Court

By adopting the logic in Narendra K. Ambwani, the court resolved the ambiguity between the restricted timeline in the 1993 Notification and the standard 10-year rule, concluding that the RPO is bound to renew the passport for 10 years unless a court specifically orders otherwise

The court noted the petitioners were well-settled and the FIR proceedings were already stayed, diminishing the risk of absconding

The court held that the application must be processed within four weeks

The petitioners must still obtain specific permission from the concerned Trial Court before undertaking any actual travel abroad, at which point the Trial Court may impose necessary conditions

Rule made absolute