Passport Authority Cannot Decide If Accused Has Right To Travel Abroad, Such Power Is Only Vested In Trial Court: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court recently observed that passport authorities do not have any authority to decide whether an accused has the right to travel abroad as such an authority is only vested with the Trail Court which may impose conditions, if accused moves a travel plea. 

In doing so, the Court directed the Passport Authority to renew the petitioner-accused's passport for a period of 10 years as per the Passport Act, 1967 and Rules.

The court was hearing a man's plea booked under the Gambling Act seeking a direction that the renewal of his passport for only 1 year was violative of his fundamental right and therefore was illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violated provisions of the Passport Act.

Referring to a 2014 decision of the division bench of the Bombay High Court, Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee in his order observed:

"This Court is also of the considered opinion that the passport authorities do not have any authority to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad and such authority is only vested in the Trial Court which can impose conditions if an application is made seeking permission to travel abroad. This Court is of the considered opinion that the directions issued by the Bombay High Court are binding upon the passport authorities to renew the passport for a period of 10 years as per the Act and the Rules.”

In the present case an FIR was registered and chargesheet was filed against the petitioner under Sections 4 (Penalty for being found in gaming-house or present for the purpose of gambling in a common gaming house) and 5 (Punishment for keeping or using a common gaming house) of the Gambling Act wherein, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanand passed an order to renew the passport of the petitioner as per the applicable rules and regulations.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the passport of the petitioner expired during the pendency of trial the petitioner which has been pending for 6 years and as per the notification of GSR dated 25.08.1993, the respondent authority has to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of 10 years.

The Counsel contended that despite the order of the Trail Court dated 18.08.2023 and 20.11.2024 directing renewal of the passport to the Passport Authority as per the rules and notification, the passport was renewed only for 1 year even though the petitioner applied for the renewal of passport for 10 years. It was argued that the petitioner is engaged in running a car studio due to which he travels to neighbouring countries for expansion of his business and import goods. It was argued that this restricts the petitioner to travel for business and urged to court to issue appropriate direction assuring that the petitioner is a well-settled businessman with no intend to abscond.He relied on the Narendra K Ambwani vs Union of India & Ors. (2014) wherein the Bombay High Court issued guidelines to be followed by the authorities for the renewal of passport as per rules.

The Counsel for the respondent passport authority contended that the petitioner's passport was renewed as per the notification of GSR that limits renewal to one year when the Trial Court's travel permission is for less than for a year or unspecified. He submitted passport was issued as per the rules and prevalent notification however, the court may issue direction for issuance of passport for a certain period of validity as per the rules.

The Court referred to a 1993 GSR Notification that exempts the Indian citizens with pending criminal cases who have court permission to travel abroad and observed, “Clause (ii) thereof states that if there is no period specified in the order passed by the Trial Court for issuance of passport, the passport shall be issued for a period of 1 year. The said Notification also specifies in Clause (i) that if the Court specifies the period for which the passport has to be issued, then the passport shall be issued for such a specified period. In the present case, the passport authority has processed the renewal application of the petitioner for a period of 1 year since the Trial Court has not specified any period in its order. Further, the said order also places restriction that whenever the petitioner has to travel abroad, he has to take appropriate permission from the Trial Court.”

It referred to Bombay High Court's order wherein the directions were laid down regarding the renewal of passport according to the Magistrate's Order referring to GSR Notification 570(E), the passport be renewed for the period specified by the Magistrate or the Notification and if the passport is valid for less than a year, an additional booklet to be issued with the order of the Magistrate and found the decision applicable to the present case

It noted the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanand directed the renewal of the passport of the petitioner without specifying the renewal period. The court also opined that the directions issued by the Bombay High Court are binding upon the passport authorities to renew the passport for a period of 10 years as per the Act and the Rules

It said,  “In view of the aforesaid reasons and observations, the respondent authorities are directed to renew the passport of the petitioner for a period of 10 years. However, it is clarified that if the petitioner has to undertake any travel abroad, he will have to make appropriate application to the Trial Court seeking permission to travel abroad, which shall impose such conditions as it deems fit and proper in case of the petitioner. If any application for renewal of the passport is made by the petitioner, the same be decided expeditiously within a period of 4 weeks from the date of such application.”

The petition was thus allowed.

Case Title: Harsh Mahesh Tanna vs State of Gujarat & Anr.

Case Number: SCA No. 3289 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 73