Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has held that where a passport applicant facing a pending criminal case obtains a No Objection Certificate (NOC) or sanction from the competent court without any specified period for issuance, the passport authority is justified in granting a passport valid for one year only, in accordance with statutory guidelines.
The decision was rendered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi in Rahimuddin v. Union of India and Another (Writ-C No. 34412 of 2025), decided on October 10, 2025. The judgment was authored by Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi.
The petitioner, Rahimuddin, sought a direction to the Regional Passport Officer, Bareilly, to reissue his passport for ten years pursuant to an NOC dated October 10, 2024, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, allowing him to travel abroad. The passport was earlier issued for one year, from January 20, 2025, to January 19, 2026.
The petitioner relied on this Court’s decision in Pawan Kumar Rajbhar v. Union of India (2024:AHC:9963-DB) to contend that once the competent court grants permission to travel abroad, the passport must be issued for the standard ten-year validity period, unless other legal impediments exist.
The respondents opposed the plea, submitting that the NOC permitted travel for Haj pilgrimage but did not specify any duration for which the passport was to be issued. Therefore, under the Government of India Notification dated August 25, 1993, and the Office Memorandum dated October 10, 2019, the passport authority rightly limited the validity to one year.
After examining the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, Passport Rules, 1980, and the Notification G.S.R. 570(E) issued under Section 22 of the Act, the Court observed that the said notification provides clear statutory guidance. If the order of the competent court does not specify the duration for which the passport is to be issued, the passport must be issued for one year only, with the option of renewal upon fresh application.
The Court referred to the Office Memorandum dated October 10, 2019, issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, which reiterates that the notification forms part of the Rules and must be applied strictly in all cases where proceedings are pending under Section 6(2)(f) of the Act. The Bench also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rita Verma v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 10661 of 2024), which upheld the applicability of the 2019 Memorandum.
In its analysis, the Court traced the legal framework from Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967 SCC OnLine SC 21) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, affirming that while the right to travel abroad is encompassed within the right to personal liberty, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under law, including statutory provisions governing passport issuance.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the petitioner’s case fell within clause (a)(ii) of the 1993 Notification, and therefore, the passport authority was within its power to grant validity for one year. The Bench emphasized that a ten-year passport cannot be demanded as a matter of right in such circumstances.
The Court further issued administrative directions to ensure timely processing of passport applications, observing that authorities must act diligently and avoid unnecessary delays in police verification or communication with applicants. It directed that the Regional Passport Officer inform applicants of any impediments within one month of application and decide upon renewal requests promptly after submission of requisite permissions.
The writ petition was disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek renewal before expiry of his passport, in accordance with the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967, Passport Rules, 1980, and the notifications issued by the Government of India. The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to all Regional Passport Offices in Uttar Pradesh and to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. for necessary compliance.
Case Title: Rahimuddin v. Union of India and Another
Case No.: Writ-C No. 34412 of 2025
Coram: Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi
Date of Judgment: October 10, 2025
For Petitioner: Pradeep Kumar Aditya, Advocate
For Respondents: Arvind Nath Agrawal, Panel Counsel
!["No Loudspeakers For Azan, No Fundamental Right To Create Noise," Says Allahabad HC To Two Mosques [Read Judgment]](/secure/uploads/2020/01/lj_4995_Allahabad_HC_AZAN.jpg)
