Passport Authorities must renew passports for ten years despite pending criminal proceedings if the trial court permits.

The petitioner applied for a fresh passport, but the respondent authority refused to issue it for the standard 10-year duration, citing the pendency of a criminal complaint against her.

The respondents contended that under GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, citizens facing criminal proceedings must produce a court order to depart from India, and passports are typically restricted to shorter durations in such cases.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the issuance of a passport for the full 10-year term.

1. Whether the passport authority is mandated to renew or issue a passport for a full 10-year term to an individual facing pending criminal proceedings when the Trial Court has not specified a shorter duration.

2. Whether the passport authority has the jurisdiction to decide an accused person's right to travel abroad independent of the Trial Court.

The court primarily applied Section 6(2)(f) and Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, and the Ministry of External Affairs’ GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993.

These provisions exempt citizens with pending criminal cases from certain restrictions if they obtain a court order permitting travel, subject to specific validity rules: (i) as specified by the court, or (ii) for one year if no period is specified.

The court also relied on the persuasive precedent of the Bombay High Court in Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India (writ petition No.361 of 2014), which clarified that qualifying applicants are entitled to a 10-year renewal unless a court specifically restricts it.

The Court observed that while GSR Notification 570(E) provides a default one-year validity if no court order specifies a period, this creates an ambiguity when read with the Passports Act and Rules.

The Court reasoned that the power to restrict an accused person's movement or travel abroad rests solely with the Trial Court, not the passport authorities.

By adopting the rationale from the Bombay High Court, the court held that the passport authority should issue or renew the document for the standard 10-year period to avoid unnecessary administrative hurdles, provided the applicant remains subject to the Trial Court’s conditions for actual travel.

The court determined that as long as the petitioner obtains travel permission from the concerned Trial Court, the passport's administrative validity should align with standard rules.

The Court clarified that the issuance of a 10-year passport does not grant an absolute right to leave the country; the petitioner must still apply to the Trial Court for specific permission before undertaking any travel abroad, at which point the Trial Court may impose necessary conditions.

Rule was made absolute.