Passport Can Be Issued Only For 1 Year If Court Permitting Travel Abroad Doesn't Specify Duration : Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed so while dismissing a plea seeking reissuance of a ten-year passport based on a NOC granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit.

Briefly put, the petitioner (Rahimuddin) had earlier approached the High Court seeking issuance of a passport despite a pending criminal case under Section 447 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The Court had disposed of that petition while directing him to seek permission/NOC from the competent criminal court.

Subsequently, the CJM Court granted him an NOC on 10 October 2024. Following the NOC, the Regional Passport Office, Bareilly, issued a passport valid for one year (January 20, 2025 to January 19, 2026).

However, the petitioner later sought renewal for a full ten-year period. He argued that once permission had been granted by the competent court, the statutory period prescribed under the Passport Act, 1967 should apply.

The passport authority, however, contended that since the court order did not specify any duration for which the passport was to be issued, the validity was rightly restricted to one year in line with the Notification dated 25 August 1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).

Challenging the stand of the passport authority, the petitioner moved the HC.

Court's Consideration

At the outset, the High Court examined the Passport Act, 1967, Passport Rules, 1980 and the Ministry of External Affairs notification dated August 25, 1993 and Office Memorandum dated October 10, 2019 to hold thus:

"…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 and if the court order specifies a period for an applicant to travel abroad for which the passport is to be issued, the same shall be issued for that specified duration. However, 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".

The Court added that in instances where the court permits travel abroad for a period less than one year but does not provide any specific duration for the validity period of the passport, then also the passport shall be issued for one year.

The Court also relied on the statutory notification issued under Section 22 of the Passport Act to note that the passport authority in the present case was well within its power to issue a passport to the petitioner for one year only.

"…where no specific period is stated in the order of the competent court, the passport may be issued for one year at a time and the said period can be extended by way of renewal as per law if the application is made before the authorities, provided that the applicant has not yet travelled abroad during the court-sanctioned period and that the court's order has not been modified or revoked in the meantime", the Court clarified.

The Court further held that the petitioner could not demand a ten-year passport as a matter of right and may instead apply for renewal in accordance with the law once the one-year period expires.

Furthermore, while acknowledging the constitutional right of a person to travel abroad, the Court also stressed that passport authorities and police must act with diligence in processing applications and verifications.

It referred to the Citizen's Charter of June 2025 published by the Ministry of External Affairs, which prescribes timelines of 30 working days for new passports and 7 working days for re-issuance, excluding police verification periods.

Importantly, the bench added that delay in police verification, which is an essential exercise for an accused, is creating hurdle in realization of the right to travel, especially in cases where reissuance of the passport is for a duration of one year.

"…this Court expects that the authorities concerned, particularly the police department, shall ensure that all verification files pertaining to passport applications are processed with due diligence and completed within the stipulated time-frame prescribed by the Ministry of External Affairs”, the Court directed, warning that “any delay should be strictly avoided unless justified by exceptional circumstances".

The bench, however, referred to those instances as well where passport seekers do not wait for a notice from the passport office in the event of any issue regarding grant of passport application at times they even do not give reply to the notice and directly approach the HC for a direction.

"this Court is flooded with petition seeking direction to Passport Office to dispose of their pending application for either issuance of a fresh passport or re-issuance (renewal) of passport..." the bench noted.

Thus, to streamline the entire process of issuance of a passport, the bench issued the following key directions

• Passport applicants, if they find the disposal of their applications to be delayed, should first reply to the notice
• If they find that their application for passport has remained pending for their implication in criminal case, they should first apply for necessary no objection/sanction/approval from court concerned, police or criminal law court, as the case may be.
• The passport office should also not linger on their matters as there may be urgency to a passport applicant.
• The concerned Regional Passport Officer in all circumstances where passport cannot be issued must inform the applicant regarding it within a month of submission of passport application
• As soon as proper no objection/sanction/approval is obtained and submitted, such officer should dispose of passport application finally within a further period of a month.
• The police in cases of application submitted for passport must submit its report within four weeks without undue delay.

Before parting with the order, the Bench directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to all Regional Passport Offices in Uttar Pradesh and to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of UP, for necessary compliance.

Case title - Rahimuddin vs. Union Of India And Another

Citation : 

Click Here To Read/Download order