Recently, the Allahabad High Court directed that police verification for passports must be completed within four weeks. The Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed that “any delay in such administrative functions should be strictly avoided unless justified by exceptional circumstances,” noting that prolonged verification hampers a citizen’s right to travel abroad.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from the Petitioner's plea seeking a direction to the Regional Passport Officer, Bareilly, to re-issue his passport for a period of ten years. The grievance stemmed from the fact that his earlier passport had been issued with a restricted validity of one year, from January 20, 2025, to January 19, 2026, on account of a pending criminal case registered under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Although the petitioner had obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, permitting him to travel abroad, he asserted that such judicial permission entitled him to a full-term passport as contemplated under the statutory provisions.
Contentions:
The petitioner argued that once the competent court had granted permission, renewal for the full ten-year duration was warranted. He relied on the Division Bench rulings in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India and Ors. and Ishtiyak Khan v. Union of India and Ors., maintaining that the pendency of criminal proceedings could not justify curtailing the passport’s tenure when judicial sanction to travel existed.
In response, the government counsel contended that the NOC permitted travel solely for pilgrimage and did not specify the period for which the passport was to be issued. Citing the Ministry of External Affairs’ Notification dated August 25, 1993, it was argued that in the absence of a specified duration, the passport authority was empowered to issue a passport valid for one year, renewable upon fresh application.
Observation of the Court:
Upon examining the Passports Act, 1967, Passport Rules, 1980, and related notifications, the Bench observed, “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 of one year.”
The Court held that the notification under Section 22 of the Passport Act, 1967, has statutory force, mandating one-year validity in the absence of a specified period in the judicial order. Endorsing the reasoning in Mohd. Talha v. Union of India, it found the one-year period a reasonable balance between judicial discretion and administrative prudence.
Expressing concern over the growing number of petitions seeking directions for passport issuance or renewal, the Bench referred to the Ministry’s Citizen’s Charter and stressed that “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.”
The Court added that “delaying in police verification, which is an essential exercise for an accused, is creating hurdle in realization of the right to travel.” It directed that Regional Passport Officers must notify applicants of any impediment within a month and dispose of cases within another month upon receipt of necessary clearances.
The decision of the Court:
Concluding that the passport authority had acted within its jurisdiction, the Bench held, “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 petitioner was granted liberty to seek renewal in accordance with law upon expiry. The Court also ordered that copies of the judgment be circulated to all Regional Passport Offices in Uttar Pradesh and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) for compliance. It further directed, “The police in cases of application submitted for passport must submit its report within four weeks without undue delay.”
Case Title: Rahimuddin Vs. Union Of India And Another
Case No: WRIT - C No. - 34412 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, Hon'ble Justice Ajit Kumar
Advocate for Appellant: Advs. Gulabul Hasan, Pradeep Kumar Aditya, Rajesh Kumar Verma
Advocate for Respondent: A.S.G.I., Arvind Nath Agrawal
