- in United States
- within Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment, Corporate/Commercial Law and Intellectual Property topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
Introduction
In Rahimuddin v. Union of India(Writ-C No. 34412 of 2025), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has provided important clarity on a frequently disputed issue in passport law: the permissible duration for issuance or renewal of passports when criminal proceedings are pending.
Factual Background
The petitioner initially filed a writ petition seeking a direction for issuance of a passport despite a pending criminal case. The High Court disposed of the petition, pursuant to which the petitioner applied for a No-Objection/Permission/Approval from the trial court. On 10.10.2024, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit granted such approval without specifying any validity period. Consequently, the passport authority issued a passport with a one (1) year validity, i.e., from 20.01.2025 to 19.01.2026.
The petitioner subsequently sought renewal of the passport for ten (10) years.
Petitioner's Contentions
The petitioner argued that once a criminal court grants permission, the passport should be renewed for ten (10) years. Reliance was placed on Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India, 2024:AHC:9963-DB, where the Division Bench held that applicants facing pending criminal proceedings may be issued or granted renewal of a passport once they obtain requisite permission from the concerned criminal court.
Respondent's Submissions
The respondents contended that although the petitioner obtained a no-objection/approval from the trial court permitting travel for Haj pilgrimage, the order did not specify the duration of passport validity. Accordingly, the passport was issued for one (1) year, consistent with the Notification dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, prescribing guidelines for issuance of passports to individuals with pending criminal matters.
Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Passports Act, 1967, the Passport Rules, 1980, the Government Notification dated 25.08.1993, and the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 concerning applicants facing pending criminal proceedings.
Under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, pendency of a criminal proceeding is a valid ground to refuse issuance of a passport. However, the 1993 Notification carves out an exemption where the applicant obtains permission from the competent criminal court.
The High Court held that the validity of the passport must mirror the duration specified in the criminal court's order. Where no such duration is specified, the passport authority is mandated to limit the passport validity to one (1) year.
The Court clarified:
- If the criminal court permits travel but doesnotspecify validity -passport limited to one (1) year.
- If Court permits travel for less than one (1) year -passport validity capped at one (1) year.
- If Court permits travel for more than one (1) year -passport may be issued corresponding to that period.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Rita Verma v. Union of India (2024), affirming applicability of the 2019 Office Memorandum to applicants with pending criminal proceedings.
Decision
The Court held that clause (a)(ii) of the Notification dated 25.08.1993, read with the Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019, applied directly to the petitioner's case. Since the criminal court's order did not specify any duration, issuance of a one (1) year passport was justified. The petitioner therefore could not claim a ten (10) year passport as a matter of right.
Recognising the growing number of writ petitions concerning passport issuance or renewal, the Court referred to the MEA Citizen's Charter (June 2025), which prescribes a processing period of up to thirty (30) working days for issuance of ordinary passports, excluding police verification. Noting that police verification delays are a recurring cause of litigation, the Court issued directions:
- The Regional Passport Officer must inform the applicantwithin one (1) monthif a passport cannot be issued.
- Upon receipt of proper permission/NOC, the application must be decidedwithin an additional month.
- Police authorities must complete and submit verification reportswithin four (4) weeks, without undue delay.
Anhad Law's Perspective
The judgment reinforces a structured framework that balances individual liberty with the integrity of criminal proceedings. By requiring passport validity to follow the duration specified by the criminal court, the High Court ensures that the exemption to Section 6(2)(f) operates within defined limits and cannot be misused to secure long-term travel freedom during pending trials.
The Court also recognized systemic administrative issues, especially delays attributable to police verification and uncertainty within the passport authority. The mandatory timelines for communication, processing and police verification promote transparency, predictability and administrative discipline. These directions are likely to reduce avoidable litigation and create a more citizen-centric passport issuance mechanism.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
