The Calcutta High Court clarified that the exemption power under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 supersedes the one-year default imposed by Notification GSR 570(E) when a court has already permitted passport renewal, even if criminal proceedings are pending.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Agarwal, sought a direction to the Ministry of External Affairs to renew his passport for ten years. His passport was due to expire on 28 January 2026, and he had pending criminal proceedings before the Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.
Key Facts
- 28-01-2026: Expiry date of petitioner’s passport.
- 17-09-2025: Petitioner's application to the Special Judge for release of passport for renewal and permission to travel abroad.
- 09-10-2025: Special Judge released passport for renewal, subject to a Rs 10,00,000 indemnity bond, original title documents, and an undertaking not to misuse the passport or travel abroad without court permission.
- 13-10-2025: Same court reiterated release conditions in a separate ECIR case.
- 17-10-2025: Petitioner applied to the Ministry of External Affairs for renewal and disclosed pending ECIR cases.
- 03-11-2025: Ministry directed petitioner to produce a court order specifying passport validity for processing.
- 23-02-2026: Petitioner submitted representation stating that the earlier court order sufficed and no separate permission was required.
- 16-03-2026: Ministry issued a communication refusing a ten-year passport, invoking Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25-08-1993.
- 31-07-2026: Writ petition concluded before the High Court.
- 05-08-2026: Judgment delivered.
Procedural History
- 17-09-2025: Application filed before Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi (ECIR No. 05 of 2022).
- 09-10-2025: Special Judge ordered release of passport for renewal with conditions.
- 13-10-2025: Same court reiterated order in ECIR No. 01 of 2023.
- 03-11-2025: Ministry of External Affairs issued a notice demanding a court order specifying validity.
- 23-02-2026: Petitioner’s representation submitted.
- 16-03-2026: Ministry’s refusal communication.
- 31-07-2026: Writ petition (W.P.A. No. 9256 of 2026) filed before Calcutta High Court.
- 05-08-2026: Judgment delivered.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Argues that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act only restricts travel, not passport validity; the 1993 notification cannot impose a separate one-year limit; Rule 12 of the Passport Rules 1980 provides a ten-year duration; the court’s earlier order suffices.
- Respondent (Ministry of External Affairs): Maintains that Notification GSR 570(E) requires a one-year passport if the court order does not specify a period; therefore, a ten-year passport cannot be issued.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for a direction to the passport authority to renew his passport for ten years, within three weeks of the judgment, and to be allowed to surrender the passport to the Special Judge within five days of renewal.
The Legal Issue
Whether, in a case where the Special Judge has released a passport for renewal and the applicant is exempt under Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967, the passport authority can lawfully limit the renewal to one year on the basis of Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25 August 1993, or must it issue a passport for the normal ten-year period prescribed by Rule 12 of the Passport Rules 1980.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- Section 6(2)(f) deals solely with the permission to travel abroad, not with the period of validity of a passport.
- Notification GSR 570(E) is delegated legislation under Section 22 and cannot add conditions that the parent Act does not contain.
- Rule 12 of the Passport Rules 1980 expressly provides a ten-year validity for ordinary passports.
- Precedent: Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2887) held that Section 6(2)(f) applies only at the pre-conviction stage and does not bar renewal when the court permits it.
For the Respondent
- Clause (a)(ii) of Notification GSR 570(E) mandates a one-year passport where the court order does not specify a period.
- The Ministry argues that the absence of a specified period in the Special Judge’s order triggers the default one-year rule.
- Relies on the statutory scheme that Section 6(2)(f) empowers the authority to refuse issuance when proceedings are pending.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining the language of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which reads that the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport “that proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant are pending before the criminal court in India.” The Court held that this provision is aimed at ensuring the accused remains amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court and is limited to the permission to travel, not to the duration of the passport.
“The notification cannot be treated as binding on Courts or interpreted as modifying the scheme of the Act.”
The Court then turned to Notification GSR 570(E), issued under Section 22(a) of the Passports Act. It emphasized that delegated legislation must conform strictly to the enabling statute and cannot create substantive obligations absent in the parent law. While the notification may prescribe a default one-year validity where the court does not specify a period, the Court observed that the petitioner was already exempt under Section 22 because the Special Judge had permitted renewal and imposed conditions on travel. Consequently, the default rule could not override the statutory right to a ten-year passport under Rule 12 of the Passport Rules 1980.
The Court distinguished the present facts from Mahesh Kumar Agarwal where the NIA Court had not mentioned a ten-year period and had imposed travel restrictions. Here, the Special Judge’s order, though silent on the period, was an exempting order under Section 22, and the passport authority retained discretion to grant the normal ten-year validity.
Further, the Court cited the principle that delegated legislation cannot supplement primary legislation (Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187) and that any condition imposing a one-year limit must be reasonable and within the scope of the parent Act. Since the Act and the Rules already provide a ten-year period for ordinary passports, imposing a shorter period would be an impermissible addition.
Finally, the Court clarified that the passport authority must still enforce the conditions imposed by the Special Judge - namely, the indemnity bond, the undertaking not to misuse the passport, and surrender of the passport within five days of renewal. These are procedural safeguards, not substantive barriers to the ten-year renewal.
The Verdict
The Court ordered that the passport authority renew the petitioner’s passport for ten (10) years from the date of issue, within three weeks of the judgment. The petitioner must surrender the passport to the Special Judge within five days of renewal and comply with the indemnity bond and travel-permission conditions. No monetary relief was awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delegated Legislation Cannot Extend Statutory Limits
- Practitioners must examine whether a notification or rule adds conditions beyond the parent Act; if so, it is likely invalid.
- When a statute provides a specific duration (e.g., Rule 12), authorities cannot impose a shorter period solely on the basis of a notification.
Section 6(2)(f) Restricts Travel, Not Passport Validity
- Counsel should argue that pending criminal proceedings affect the right to travel, not the right to a ten-year passport.
- Courts will look for a clear exemption under Section 22 before applying the one-year default.
Evidence of Court Permission Is Controlling
- A written order from the criminal court permitting renewal, even without a specified period, is sufficient to trigger the exemption.
- Passport authorities must honor such orders and cannot unilaterally impose a one-year limit.
Practical takeaways:
- Cite Section 22 and Rule 12 when seeking ten-year renewals.
- Obtain and attach the criminal court’s order to the passport application.
- Anticipate the authority’s demand for an indemnity bond and comply promptly.
