Passport Authority must renew passport for ten years despite pending criminal proceedings if court order lacks specific duration.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Passport Authority is mandated to renew a passport for a full 10-year term despite the pendency of criminal proceedings when the Trial Court has not specified a shorter duration

The court held

The Court answered in the affirmative, holding that the petitioner is entitled to a 10-year renewal.

It also directed

The Court directed the respondent to decide the renewal application and issue a passport with 10-year validity within four weeks, clarifying that the petitioner must still obtain specific permission and comply with conditions from the concerned Trial Court before undertaking any actual travel abroad.

The petition was allowed and the Rule was made absolute

01Facts

The petitioner, whose passport had expired, applied for a 10-year renewal to travel abroad

pp. 1-2

The respondent (Passport Authority) refused to renew the passport for the standard 10-year term, citing the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner and the limitations prescribed under GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993

p. 2

The respondent contended that since the Trial Court’s order permitting travel did not specify a validity period, the passport could only be renewed for one year

p. 2 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Passport Authority is mandated to renew a passport for a full 10-year term despite the pendency of criminal proceedings when the Trial Court has not specified a shorter duration

p. 2 · ¶ 3

ii.2. Whether the guidelines established by the Bombay High Court regarding the reconciliation of the Passport Rules, 1980 and GSR Notification 570(E) are applicable to the present facts

p. 5 · ¶ 12

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 6(2)(f) and Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, alongside GSR Notification 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, which provides exemptions for citizens with pending criminal cases

p. 3 · ¶ 8

The Passport Rules, 1980, which mandate a 10-year renewal for qualifying adults

p. 4 · ¶ 10

Persuasive precedent of Narendra K. Ambwani v. Union of India & Ors. (2014 SCC Online Bom 356), which clarified that the power to restrict travel lies with the Trial Court, not the Passport Authority

pp. 5-6

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

Passports Act, 1967 Section 22 Section 6

04Reasoning

The Court examined the ambiguity between GSR Notification 570(E) and the general Passport Rules. While the respondent argued that Clause (ii) of the Notification limits renewal to one year if the Trial Court is silent on the period, the Court adopted the reasoning of the Bombay High Court in Narendra K. Ambwani

p. 4 · ¶ 9 · p. 5 · ¶ 12

The Court reasoned that the Passport Authority lacks the jurisdiction to decide an accused's right to travel; this authority is vested solely in the Trial Court

p. 6 · ¶ 12

Consequently, if a Trial Court grants permission to renew as per "Rules," the 10-year period under the Passport Rules, 1980, should prevail, as a shorter 1-year renewal creates administrative hurdles for obtaining visas

pp. 4-5