The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a recent judgment, has ruled that a Regional Passport Officer is justified in issuing a passport with a one-year validity to an applicant facing pending criminal proceedings, especially when the ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the concerned criminal court does not specify a duration for the passport.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, disposed of a writ petition (WRIT-C No. 34412 of 2025) filed by Rahimuddin. The petitioner sought a direction for the re-issuance of his passport for a full ten-year period, but the court upheld the passport authority’s decision, finding it consistent with statutory notifications issued by the Ministry of External Affairs.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Rahimuddin, had previously approached the High Court (in Writ C No. 30083 of 2024) seeking a passport, which was pending due to a criminal case (FIR No. 181 of 2016 under Section 447 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984). The court, on 10.09.2024, disposed of that petition with certain directions.
Following the court’s order, the petitioner applied for and received a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Pilibhit, on 10.10.2024. Subsequently, the Regional Passport Officer, Bareilly (respondent no. 2), issued a passport to the petitioner, but limited its validity to a period of one year, from 20.01.2025 to 19.01.2026.
Aggrieved by the short validity, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking a mandamus to command the respondent to re-issue the passport for a period of ten years.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in light of the permission granted by the competent court (CJM, Pilibhit), the passport should be renewed for the statutorily prescribed period of ten years. The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar vs. Union of India (Neutral Citation No., 2024:AHC:9963-DB) and an order in Ishtiyak Khan vs. Union of India and Others (Writ C No. 24699 of 2024).
Controverting these submissions, the learned panel counsel for the respondent-passport office submitted that while the petitioner had obtained an NOC to travel for pilgrimage (Haj), the order from the competent court did not specify any duration for which the passport was to be issued. Therefore, the authority, adhering to the Notification dated 28.8.1993, rightly issued the passport for a period of one year.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, in the judgment authored by Hon’ble Swarupama Chaturvedi, J., framed the central issue as: “whether the passport-issuing authority has correctly granted the passport valid for only one year, despite no objection/sanction/approval order passed by the competent criminal law court… and whether petitioner is entitled to have further renewal of his passport for a period of ten years…”
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Passport Act, 1967. It noted that while Section 6(2)(f) of the Act allows for the refusal of a passport if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant, Section 22 grants the Central Government the power to exempt individuals from this provision.
The judgment heavily relied on the Government of India Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, issued under Section 22. This notification exempts citizens with pending criminal cases from Section 6(2)(f), provided they produce a court order permitting them to depart from India. The court highlighted the conditions specified in this notification:
- (a)(i): If the court order specifies a period for which the passport is to be issued, it shall be issued for that period.
- (a)(ii): “if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified in such order, the passport shall be issued for a period one year”.
The Bench observed that this notification was further clarified by a Ministry of External Affairs Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, which instructed that the provisions of G.S.R. 570(E) “may be strictly applied in all case” as it “is a statutory notification and hence, forms part of the Rules.”
Applying these legal principles to the facts, the court noted from the record that the NOC issued by the CJM, Pilibhit, “does not specify any duration for which the passport was to be issued.”
Consequently, the court held that “clause (a)(ii) of the notification dated 25th August, 1993 as amended/modified on 10.10.2019 is attracted to the facts of the case.”
The court concluded, “Hence, we hold that the passport-issuing authority was well within its power to grant passport having validity of one year only and the petitioner cannot demand a passport or its renewal for ten years as a matter of right.”
The Bench also distinguished the cases cited by the petitioner, stating that the reliance on Ishtiyak Khan (supra) was “misplaced as the order passed… is based upon different facts and circumstances which are distinguishable from the case of petitioner.”
Final Decision
The High Court found no justification to issue a direction to extend the period of the petitioner’s passport at this stage.
However, the court clarified the petitioner’s rights moving forward, stating, “However, a person like petitioner can repeatedly apply for renewal of passport soon after its expiry or even before, in accordance with relevant provisions of law as discussed above.”
Disposing of the petition, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the passport authority for an extension just before the expiry of his current one-year passport. If such an application is made, the respondent no. 2 “shall consider the application as per the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 as well as the Passport Rules, 1980 and notifications issued by Government of India… and in the light of law as discussed above.”
