Allahabad High Court Directs Police To Complete Passport Verification In 4 Weeks, Upholds One-Year Validity For Applicants Facing Criminal Cases
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi upheld the Regional Passport Officer’s decision to issue a one-year passport to an applicant with a pending criminal case, as the trial court’s order did not specify any duration. The Bench held that such issuance complies with the 1993 Government notification and the 2019 Ministry of External Affairs memorandum governing passports for individuals facing criminal proceedings. Further, to ensure efficiency and accountability in the process, the Court directed that police verification reports for passport applications be completed and submitted within four weeks, noting that delays in this essential step hinder the realization of the right to travel, particularly when reissuance is sought for a limited one-year period.
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the Regional Passport Officer, Bareilly to re-issue his passport for ten years pursuant to a no-objection certificate dated 10.10.2024 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit. The petitioner’s earlier application for a passport had been delayed because a criminal case arising from an FIR registered under Section 447 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 was pending. Following a prior direction of the High Court in another writ petition, the petitioner obtained the required permission from the competent court, resulting in a passport being issued for one year from 20.01.2025 to 19.01.2026.
The petitioner contended that once the court had granted permission, he was entitled to a ten-year passport as prescribed for ordinary passports. He relied upon a Division Bench judgment dealing with the issuance of passports to applicants facing criminal cases upon obtaining appropriate permission, and upon an order of a coordinate Bench.
The respondents argued that while permission had been granted by the trial court to travel for pilgrimage, the order did not specify the duration of the passport, and therefore, under the applicable notification governing passports for persons with pending criminal proceedings, the passport authority correctly restricted the validity to one year.
The dispute required examination of statutory provisions under the Passport Act, 1967, including Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 22, the Government of India Notification dated 25.08.1993 issued in exercise of powers under Section 22, and an Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 explaining the applicability of the notification to applicants with pending criminal cases. The court assessed these materials to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to a ten-year passport or whether issuance of a one-year passport was legally mandated when the criminal court did not specify the duration for which the passport could be issued.
The court recorded that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act “makes it more specific that if proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an applicant are pending before a criminal law court in India, it can be one of the reasons for refusal of passport.” It noted that the provision “indicates its binding nature… and does not leave any room for exercising discretion by the passport authority.”
While referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu, the court reiterated the principle that “the passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal.”
The High Court extracted and examined the Government of India Notification dated 25.08.1993, observing that “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.” It further recorded that “if such order gives permission to travel abroad for a period less than one year, but does not specify the period validity of the passport, the passport shall be issued for one year.”
On the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, the court noted: “The provisions of GSR 570(E) may be strictly applied in all cases… GSR 570(E) is a statutory notification and hence, forms part of the Rules.”
The court referred to the Lucknow Bench decision, recording that the Central Government has “deliberately left the period for issuance of Passport to the discretion of the trial Court.” Where the court does not specify a period, “the power of determining the period reverts back to the residuary authority of the Central Government… and… a reasonable period of one year has been fixed.”
The Bench stated that “a passport related application is also to be disposed of timely to enable a person to opt for other remedies.” It added that “passport applicants, if find disposal of their applications delayed, should first reply to the notice” and obtain necessary permissions.
Applying these principles, the court stated: “we have no doubt in holding that clause (a)(ii) of the notification dated 25th August, 1993… is attracted to the facts of the case.” It further recorded 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… for ten years as a matter of right.”
The Court stated that “in the circumstances, in the present case we do not find any justification to issue further direction at this stage to extend period of passport beyond 19.1.2026.”
“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.” The Bench added that “in the event petitioner approaches the authority concerned for extension of the validity of his passport just before its expiry by following due procedure prescribed in law, 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 through Ministry of External Affairs from time to time and in the light of law as discussed above.”
“A copy of this judgement [be sent] to all the Regional Passport Offices of the State of Uttar Pradesh and also to the Additional Chief Secretary Home, Government of U.P. for necessary compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Gulabul Hasan, Pradeep Kumar Aditya, Rajesh Kumar Verma
For the Respondents: A.S.G.I., Arvind Nath Agrawal
Case Title: Rahimuddin vs. Union of India and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC: 181505-DB
Case Number: Writ - C No. 34412 of 2025
Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar, Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi
