Allahabad HC Says One-Year Passport Validity Justified If Court Doesn’t Specify Duration

Representative image

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that when a criminal court grants an accused permission or a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to travel abroad without specifying the period for which the passport may be issued, passport authorities are justified in restricting its validity to one year.

A division bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by one Rahimuddin, who sought a ten-year passport despite a pending criminal case against him.

Rahimuddin had earlier moved the High Court seeking a passport while facing trial under Section 447 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The court had directed him to obtain permission from the competent criminal court before applying.

Subsequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Pilibhit, granted him an NOC on October 10, 2024.

Acting on this, the Regional Passport Office (RPO), Bareilly, issued him a passport valid for one year, from January 20, 2025, to January 19, 2026.

Dissatisfied, the petitioner sought a full ten-year validity, arguing that once a court grants permission to travel, the standard validity under the Passport Act, 1967, should apply.

The passport office, however, maintained that in the absence of a specified duration in the court order, the one-year limit was consistent with a 1993 Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) notification.

After reviewing the Passport Act (1967), Passport Rules (1980), and relevant MEA notifications, the bench upheld the passport authority’s decision.

“In cases where a citizen is permitted by a competent court to be issued a passport, the duration shall be governed by the court’s order. If no specific period is mentioned, the passport shall be valid for one year only,” the bench observed.

The court further clarified that even if the court order allows travel abroad for less than a year but doesn’t fix a validity period, the passport may still be issued for one year.

It added that such passports can later be renewed as per law if the applicant’s court permission remains valid.

“The passport authority acted within its powers under Section 22 of the Passport Act,” the judges noted, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for a ten-year document.

While acknowledging that the right to travel abroad is part of an individual’s constitutional liberty, the bench emphasised that passport authorities and police must ensure timely verification to avoid undue delays.

Citing the MEA Citizen’s Charter (June 2025), the court reminded authorities of the prescribed timelines, 30 working days for new passports and 7 working days for renewals, excluding police verification periods.

It also noted that delays in police verification often hinder applicants facing criminal proceedings, especially those with one-year passports.