Decide Plea Challenging Passport Fee Hike Within Three Months: Delhi High Court To Centre

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Central Government to decide a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of the Passports (Amendment) Rules, 2026, which substantially revised passport fees across various categories with effect from July 01.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the Union Ministry of External Affairs to decide the plea moved by Pravasi Legal Cell expeditiously, preferably within three months.

According to the petition, the fee revision imposes a severe financial burden on millions of Indian citizens, particularly Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), migrant workers and overseas Indian citizens.

It alleges that overseas applicants are now required to pay passport fees that are, in several categories, significantly higher than those payable by resident Indian applicants for substantially similar statutory services.

For instance, fee for an ordinary 36-page passport has been increased from ₹1,500 to ₹2,500 for resident Indians, whereas the same has been increased from US $75 (approximately ₹7,165) to US $125 (approximately ₹11,942) for overseas Indians.

During the hearing today, the Court orally told the petitioner's counsel: “Considering the rate of inflation today, you find this fee to be excessively high? Please represent your cause to the Ministry concerned. They will take a decision…. Make representation to the Ministry of External Affairs.”

The Court directed the Union of India to treat the petition as a representation and decide what may be warranted in law.

“Any decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioner. The petition is disposed of,” the Court said.

The plea contended that the revised fee structure is arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The PIL sought quashing of the amended Rules as well as a direction to the Central Government to reconsider and rationalise the revised fees after considering the petitioner's representations.

The petitioner argued that passports are not discretionary documents but essential statutory documents required for employment, residence, visa renewals, access to consular services and international mobility.

It submitted that the enhanced fees disproportionately affect blue-collar migrant workers employed in Gulf countries and other foreign jurisdictions, many of whom depend on overseas employment to support their families in India.

It was contended that Pravasi Legal Cell had submitted representations to the Ministry of External Affairs on June 27, while its Kerala Chapter also submitted a separate representation on July 06, seeking reconsideration of the revised fee structure. However, it was alleged, that no action was taken.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Neya AS, Mr.Anto Robert G, Mr. Basil Jaison, Mr. George Daniel George, Advocates

Title: Pravasi Legal Cell v. Union of India