Passport Authorities Cannot Restrict Renewal Validity To One Year Merely Because Criminal Court Order Did Not Specify Tenure: Calcutta High Court

"Whether a person who is in bail or facing trial may actually leave the country is a matter for the criminal Court, which can grant or withhold permission, impose conditions, insists on undertakings, or refuse leave altogether." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, held that passport authorities cannot curtail the renewal validity of a passport to one year merely because a criminal court order permitting its renewal did not specify a particular time frame.

A bench of Justice Krishna Rao observed that once a criminal court permits the renewal of a passport of an accused facing trial under strict conditions, the passport office cannot sit as an appellate authority and impose artificial constraints based on executive notifications.

The petitioner, facing proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate before a Special Judge under the PMLA at Ranchi, sought the release and renewal of his passport, which was due to expire. The Special Judge allowed the release of the passport for renewal subject to furnishing an indemnity bond, an undertaking not to misuse it, and a strict condition to re-surrender the passport to the trial court within five days of its renewal. However, the passport authority refused to issue a regular ten-year passport, insisting instead on a one-year validity citing a 1993 Central Government notification.

The primary question before the court was whether the passport authority could restrict the validity of a renewed passport to one year under the Ministry of External Affairs notification dated August 25, 1993, when the criminal court had permitted renewal without specifying a duration. The court was also called upon to determine whether the 1993 notification empowers the executive to impose binding conditions on criminal courts regarding the specification of passport tenures.

Passport Is Distinct From The Right To Travel

The court underscored that a passport is fundamentally a civil document enabling a citizen to seek a visa and cross international borders, whereas the actual permission to leave the country during pending criminal proceedings falls exclusively within the domain of the criminal court.

"A passport is a civil document that enables its holder to seek a visa and, subject to other laws and orders, to cross international borders."

Statutory Framework And Section 6(2)(f)

The bench observed that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, empowers authorities to refuse a passport if criminal proceedings are pending, focusing entirely on the permissibility of travel rather than the duration of the passport. The 1993 notification issued under Section 22 merely exempts individuals from this bar if they produce a court order permitting departure, but it does not mandate courts to specify a validity tenure.

Delegated Legislation Cannot Override Parent Act

Reiterating established constitutional principles, the court held that subordinate legislation must conform strictly to the parent statute. The bench noted that delegated legislation cannot introduce substantive obligations or compel courts to pronounce on administrative details like passport validity periods where the legislature remained silent.

"A delegated legislation or a subordinate legislation must conform exactly to the power granted."

Protection Of Personal Liberty Under Article 21

The court emphasized that the right to hold a passport is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and any restriction must be fair, just, and reasonable. Curtailing a passport's validity to one year on speculative apprehensions, despite the trial court retaining absolute custody of the document upon renewal, constitutes a disproportionate restriction.

Final Directions And Relief Granted

Concluding that the petitioner would remain completely amenable to the jurisdiction of the criminal court by virtue of the mandatory re-surrender condition, the court directed the passport authorities to renew the petitioner's passport for the normal statutory period of ten years within three weeks. The petitioner was directed to strictly comply with the trial court orders by re-depositing the renewed passport within five days.

Date of Decision: 05 August 2026