Passport authorities must renew passports for ten years despite pending criminal proceedings absent specific court restrictions.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent authority to renew his passport for a duration of 10 years

The respondent authority had declined to grant a 10-year renewal, citing a pending First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner

The petitioner had previously been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court via an order dated August 1, 2022, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3553 of 2021

The respondent argued that under GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, citizens facing criminal proceedings must produce specific court orders permitting departure from India to process passport renewals

1. Whether the respondent authority is legally required to renew the petitioner's passport for a standard period of 10 years despite the pendency of a criminal case

2. Whether the passport authorities possess the jurisdiction to restrict travel rights that are primarily the domain of the Trial Court

The Court primarily applied Section 6(2)(f) and Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, and the Central Government Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993

This notification provides exemptions for citizens with pending criminal cases to obtain passports, subject to conditions: if the Trial Court does not specify a period, the passport is typically issued for one year

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 established that qualifying applicants are entitled to a 10-year renewal unless a specific court order directs otherwise

The Court observed that while GSR 570(E) mentions a default one-year renewal when no specific period is prescribed by a court, the ambiguity regarding longer renewals is resolved by the interpretation in Narendra K. Ambwani

The Court reasoned that the passport authority does not have the mandate to determine an accused person's right to travel abroad; that authority resides solely with the Trial Court, which can impose conditions upon a travel application

Since the petitioner was already under the protection of anticipatory bail and the law requires qualifying citizens to have standard 10-year passports, the administrative refusal to grant a full-term renewal was deemed incorrect

The court harmonized the Passport Rules, 1980 with the 1993 Notification to conclude that the 10-year period should be the norm

The Court allowed the petition and directed the respondent authority to decide the petitioner's application and renew the passport for a period of 10 years within four weeks

The Court clarified that the petitioner must still obtain specific permission from the Trial Court before undertaking any travel abroad, at which point the Trial Court may impose necessary conditions

Rule was made absolute