Passport Authorities Shall Renew Passports for Ten Years Despite Pending Criminal Cases if Permitted by Courts

In brief

The question

1. Whether the passport authority can refuse the renewal of a passport for a standard 10-year term solely due to the pendency of criminal proceedings when a GSR Notification provides for exemptions

The court held

The standard duration; however, the petitioner is required to seek specific permission from the Trial Court before undertaking any travel abroad, at which point the Trial Court may impose necessary conditions

It also directed

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

01Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions for the Regional Passport Officer to renew his passport for a period of 10 years

p. 1

The respondent authority had withheld the renewal/re-issuance on the grounds that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner

p. 2

Although the investigation was complete and a chargesheet had been filed, the passport remained unissued, preventing the petitioner from traveling abroad

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the passport authority can refuse the renewal of a passport for a standard 10-year term solely due to the pendency of criminal proceedings when a GSR Notification provides for exemptions

pp. 2-3

ii.2. Whether the passport authority or the Trial Court holds the ultimate jurisdiction to determine an accused person's right to travel abroad

p. 6

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 6(2)(f) and Section 22(a) of the Passports Act, 1967, alongside GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993

p. 3

This notification stipulates that citizens with pending criminal cases may be issued passports for a period specified by the court, or for one year if no period is specified

pp. 3-4

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 generally entitled to a 10-year renewal and that the authority to restrict travel lies with the Trial Court, not the passport office

pp. 4-6

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Passports Act, 1967 Section 22 Section 6

04Reasoning

The Court observed that while GSR Notification 570(E) outlines specific durations for passport validity during pending litigation, there was an inherent ambiguity in its application regarding the standard 10-year renewal

p. 6

Adopting the reasoning from the Narendra K. Ambwani case, the Court reasoned that the Passport Rules, 1980, entitle qualifying applicants to a 10-year renewal and that the passport authorities lack the legal mandate to decide an accused's right to travel

p. 6

The Court noted that the "validity of the document" (the passport) is distinct from the "permission to depart India"

p. 6

Consequently, the Court found that the respondent must renew the document for the standard term, while the petitioner remains subject to the Trial Court’s oversight regarding actual foreign travel

pp. 6-7

05Holding

p. 7

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

pp. 6-7

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF