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

The petitioner, who operates an immigration-related services business, lost his passport on March 13, 2025, and subsequently registered a police complaint

He applied for a fresh passport with a ten-year validity period (Application No. AH306988527816).

The respondent authority declined to issue the passport for the standard ten-year term, citing a pending criminal case against the petitioner in which a charge sheet had not yet been filed

The respondent contended that under GSR Notification 570(E) dated August 25, 1993, when a trial court order does not specify a duration for passport validity, the authority is restricted to issuing or renewing the document for only one year

The court primarily considered Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which empowers authorities to refuse a passport if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant

GSR Notification 570(E) dated August 25, 1993, which provides exemptions for citizens with pending criminal cases provided they obtain court permission, while setting default validity periods (one year) if the court order is silent on duration

The court relied heavily on the precedent of Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India & Ors. (2014 SCC Online Bom 356), which clarifies that qualifying applicants are entitled to a ten-year renewal regardless of the trial court’s silence on duration, as the power to restrict actual travel remains with the trial court, not the passport office

The court examined the ambiguity between the Passports Act, the Passport Rules, 1980, and GSR Notification 570(E). It noted that while Clause (ii) of the Notification suggests a one-year limit if the trial court specifies no period, the Division Bench in Narendra K. Ambwani established that all qualifying applicants are entitled to a ten-year renewal under the Passport Rules

The court reasoned that the passport authority lacks the legal mandate to determine an accused person’s right to travel; that authority is vested solely in the trial court, which can impose specific conditions at the time of a travel application.

Consequently, the court held that the respondent’s interpretation—restricting the passport to one year—was overly restrictive and that the principles of the Ambwani judgment should be followed to ensure the applicant receives a document with standard ten-year validity

The court clarified that the issuance of the passport does not grant an absolute right to depart the country; the petitioner must still move an appropriate application before the concerned Trial Court to seek specific permission to travel abroad.

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

Rule made absolute