Click the Play button to listen to article

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging Centre's decision to increase passport fees for Indians living abroad, observing that a 67% hike after 14 years cannot be considered unreasonable or exorbitant.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma observed that the last increase in passport fees was effected in 2012 and that the government had revised the fees after a gap of 14 years. It held that the decision to determine passport processing and renewal fees falls within the government's policy domain and does not warrant judicial interference in the present case.

"After 14 years, it's a reasonable increase...we're not inclined to show any indulgence," the ACJ orally said.

The petitioner (Pravasi Legal Cell) had challenged the passport fee hike, arguing that Indian workers employed in Gulf countries, particularly those belonging to economically weaker sections, were being required to pay substantially higher fees than Indian residents.

During the hearing, the petitioner submitted that overseas Indians were required to pay around ₹11,900 for passports, compared to ₹2,500 for Indian residents. It was argued that the revised fee represented an increase of approximately 67%, from around ₹7,000 to ₹11,900, imposing a significant financial burden on low-income workers such as mechanics, plumbers and construction workers.

The petitioner contended that these workers often earn modest salaries and that the higher fees could impose a substantial burden, particularly when passport renewals and applications for family members are taken into account. The petitioner also argued that the Centre's Office Memorandum dated August 10, 2026, did not adequately address the grievance regarding the disparity in fees charged to residents and Indians living abroad.

The Court however questioned the legal basis for the relief sought and asked what legal rights, apart from Article 14 of the Constitution, were being invoked.

The petitioner then submitted that the plea was based on equitable considerations and sought relief for economically weaker Indians working in Gulf countries.

The Court however expressed reservations about creating a separate concessional fee mechanism for such workers, questioning how their economic status would be certified and whether certification by another country could bind the Indian government.

The Court observed that the government was entitled to determine its policy for passport processing and renewal. It further noted that financial decisions taken by the government warrant judicial restraint and that the proposed mechanism to assess the financial condition of Indians working abroad fell within the government's domain.

Citing the absence of a relevant statutory provision or constitutional right requiring such relief, the Court dismissed the petition.

The PIL followed an earlier order in which the High Court had asked the Centre to decide a challenge to the passport fee hike within three months.

Tags: