Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held that when a competent criminal court grants a No Objection Certificate or permission to travel abroad without indicating the duration for which a passport may be issued, the passport authority is legally justified in issuing it for one year only. The Bench made this observation while dismissing a petition that sought reissuance of a ten-year passport on the basis of a NOC issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit. The Court clarified that such applicants cannot claim a ten-year validity as a right and must seek renewal annually under the Passport Act, 1967 and the relevant government notifications, while directing authorities to ensure prompt processing of passport applications and police verifications.

The petitioner sought a direction for re-issuance of his passport for ten years pursuant to the No Objection Certificate dated 10.10.2024 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit. Earlier, his passport application had been withheld due to a pending criminal case of 2016 under Section 447 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. He approached the High Court in Writ Petition, which resulted in directions to the passport authority to act upon his application following the law laid down in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar. The competent court thereafter issued a no-objection order, upon which the Regional Passport Officer issued a passport valid for one year, from 20.01.2025 to 19.01.2026.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Notice on Pleas by Three Acquitted Death Row Prisoners Seeking Compensation for Wrongful Conviction; Seeks Assistance of Attorney General and Solicitor General

The petitioner contended that once permission had been granted by the competent criminal court, he was entitled to the statutorily prescribed ten-year period for a normal passport. He relied on Pawan Kumar Rajbhar and an order dated 23.10.2024 in Ishtiyak Khan. The respondents submitted that although permission was granted, the court order did not specify the duration for which the passport should be issued. Therefore, the authority acted in accordance with the Notification dated 25.08.1993 issued under Section 22 of the Passports Act, which mandates granting only one-year validity where the court does not prescribe a period.

The statutory provisions considered by the Court included Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 22 of the Passports Act, 1967. The Court also examined the 1993 Notification and Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 regarding issuance of passports to persons with pending criminal proceedings. The record showed that the trial court’s order permitted the petitioner to obtain a passport subject to filing an affidavit, surety, and undertaking, but did not specify any period of travel or validity.

The Court recorded that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports 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 Act “also provides a provision for issuance of passport for a shorter period of time in certain situations.”

While examining the 1993 Notification issued under Section 22, the Court quoted that the passport shall be issued “for the period specified in the order of the court… if the court specifies a period,” and “if no period either for the issue of the passport or for the travel abroad is specified… the passport shall be issued for a period one year.”

The Bench stated: “A plain reading of the above notification unequivocally leads to an inference that in cases where a citizen is permitted by the competent court to be issued with a passport, the duration of such passport shall be determined in accordance with the directions provided in that order of court.” It further recorded that “in case no such period is indicated in the order then the passport to be issued shall be valid for a period of one year only.”

Referring to Mohd. Talha, the Court noted: “the Central Government has deliberately left the period for issuance of Passport to the discretion of the trial Court” and that where the criminal court abstains from specifying the period, “the power of determining the period reverts back to the residuary authority… and… a reasonable period of one year has been fixed.”

Discussing procedural aspects, the Bench stated that “in the event applicant makes such an application stating the period for which he wants passport to be issued, the court shall pass appropriate order… by both sanctioning foreign country travel and duration.” It observed that administrative authorities must ensure that “passport related application is also to be disposed of timely” and remarked that delays in police verification “is creating hurdle in realization of the right to travel.”

The Court reviewed the factual position and recorded that the order dated 10.10.2024 “does not specify any duration for which the passport was to be issued.” It concluded that “clause (a)(ii) of the notification dated 25th August, 1993… is attracted” and therefore “the passport-issuing authority was well within its power to grant passport having validity of one year only.”

Also Read: JJ Act | Allahabad High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Teacher Terminated For Concealing Juvenile Case, Holds Conviction Under Juvenile Justice Law Not A Bar To Public Employment

The Court held that it found no justification to issue any direction for extending the period of the petitioner’s passport beyond 19.01.2026. It recorded that the petitioner may apply for renewal of his passport before its expiry and that, upon such application being made in accordance with law, the Regional Passport Officer shall consider it “as per the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 as well as the Passport Rules, 1980 and notifications… and in the light of law as discussed above.”

The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent by the Registrar (Compliance) “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: Sri Pradeep Kumar Aditya, Sri Gulabul Hasan, Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma

For the Respondents: A.S.G.I.; Sri Arvind Nath Agarwal; Sri Agresh Agarwal (holding brief)

Case Title: Rahimuddin v. 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