Passport Authorities Must Renew Passports for Ten Years Despite Pending Criminal Proceedings if Court Permission Is Unspecified

The petitioner, whose passport had expired, applied for a renewal for the standard 10-year period.

Despite the application, the respondent authority issued a passport (No. AR037160) on 20.04.2026 with a validity of only one year.

The authority restricted the validity because criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner, and the Trial Court’s order permitting travel did not specify a particular duration for the passport's validity.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for a 10-year renewal, asserting he is well-settled and not a flight risk.

1. Whether the passport authority is mandated to renew a passport for the full statutory period of 10 years when a criminal case is pending and the Trial Court order is silent on the duration of validity.

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 for citizens with pending criminal proceedings.

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

The court applied the persuasive precedent of the Bombay High Court in Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India (2014), which clarified that qualifying applicants are entitled to a 10-year renewal even during pending litigation, provided the court has granted permission.

The court addressed the ambiguity between the restrictive nature of GSR Notification 570(E) and the general Passport Rules regarding 10-year validity.

The court observed that while the respondent followed the literal text of the 1993 Notification (issuing a 1-year passport due to the Trial Court’s silence), such a restriction is not absolute.

Adopting the reasoning from Narendra K. Ambwani, the court held that the authority to decide a person’s right to travel abroad rests solely with the Trial Court, not the passport office.

Since the Trial Court had not prohibited a longer duration, and the High Court possesses the power to issue specific directions under Article 226, the court reasoned that the passport should be renewed for 10 years to avoid frequent hurdles for the petitioner, provided he continues to seek the Trial Court’s permission for actual travel.

The court clarified that this renewal does not grant an automatic right to leave the country; the petitioner must still obtain specific permission and comply with conditions imposed by the concerned Trial Court before undertaking any travel abroad.

The respondent was ordered to decide the application within four weeks.